wall street and elections in latin american emerging democracies

OECD DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

WaLL STREET aND ELECTiONS iN LaTiN aMERiCaN

EMERgiNg DEMOCRaCiESby

Sebastián Nieto Parra and Javier Santiso

Research area:Latin american Economic Outlook

October 2008

Working Paper No. 272

Wall Street and Elections in Latin American Emerging Economies

DEV/DOC(2008)8

DEVELOPMENT CENTRE WORKING PAPERS

This series of working papers is intended to disseminate the Development Centre’s research findings rapidly among specialists in the field concerned. These papers are generally available in the original English or French, with a summary in the other language.

Comments on this paper would be welcome and should be sent to the OECD Development Centre, 2, rue André Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16, France; or to [email protected]. Documents may be downloaded from: http://www.oecd.org/dev/wp or obtained via e‐mail ([email protected]).

THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED AND ARGUMENTS EMPLOYED IN THIS DOCUMENT ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHORS

AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THOSE OF THE OECD OR OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF ITS MEMBER COUNTRIES

CENTRE DE DÉVELOPPEMENT DOCUMENTS DE TRAVAIL

Cette série de documents de travail a pour but de diffuser rapidement auprès des spécialistes dans les domaines concernés les résultats des travaux de recherche du Centre de développement. Ces documents ne sont disponibles que dans leur langue originale, anglais ou français ; un résumé du document est rédigé dans l’autre langue.

Tout commentaire relatif à ce document peut être adressé au Centre de développement de l’OCDE, 2, rue André Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16, France; ou à [email protected]. Les documents peuvent être téléchargés à partir de: http://www.oecd.org/dev/wp ou obtenus via le mél ([email protected]).

LES IDÉES EXPRIMÉES ET LES ARGUMENTS AVANCÉS DANS CE DOCUMENT SONT CEUX DES AUTEURS ET NE REFLÈTENT PAS NÉCESSAIREMENT CEUX DE L’OCDE OU DES GOUVERNEMENTS DE SES PAYS MEMBRES

Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this material should be made to: Head of Publications Service, OECD

2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16, France

© OECD 2008

2 © OECD 2008

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.oecd.org/dev/wp



OECD Development Centre Working Paper No. 272

DEV/DOC(2008)8

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 4

PREFACE ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

RÉSUMÉ ........................................................................................................................................................ 6

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................... 7

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 8

II. CAPITAL MARKETS AND ELECTIONS IN EMERGING DEMOCRACIES: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..................................................................................................................................... 11

III. DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA .......................................................................................................... 15

IV. INVESTMENT BANKS’ RECOMMENDATIONS AND ELECTIONS IN EMERGING DEMOCRACIES: STYLISED FACTS ....................................................................................................... 18

V. HYPOTHESES OF THE MODEL AND ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF ELECTIONS ON BANKS’ RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 26

VI. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................... 35

ANNEX 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 37

ANNEX 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 38

ANNEX 3 ..................................................................................................................................................... 40

ANNEX 4 ..................................................................................................................................................... 41

ANNEX 5 ..................................................................................................................................................... 43

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 45

OTHER TITLES IN THE SERIES/ AUTRES TITRES DANS LA SÉRIE .............................................. 50

© OECD 2008 3


DEV/DOC(2008)8

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sebastián Nieto Parra is a Research Economist at OECD Development Centre and Chaire Finances Internationales, Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris (Sciences Po Paris). E‐mail: sebastian.nietoparra@sciences‐po.org. Javier Santiso is Chief Development Economist of the OECD and Director of the OECD Development Centre. E‐mail: [email protected]

We are grateful to Rita Da Costa for excellent research assistance provided in the course of this study. We also wish to thank participants at the LACEA 2007 Annual Meeting in Bogotá, Colombia and at the Bank of Spain Policy Seminar in 2008 for helpful comments and suggestions on a previous version of this paper; and the participants at the OECD Latin American Economic Outlook 2009 (LEO) Conference, organised at the OECD on April 24‐25th 2008. We would like also to extend our acknowledgments, for the papers transmitted and suggestions shared, to Daniela Campello, Roberto Chang, Jeff Dayton‐Johnson, Thomas Dickinson, Jeffry Frieden, David Leblang, Helmut Reisen, Sebastián Saeigh, Vito Tanzi, Paul Vaaler, and Laurence Whitehead. All errors are obviously those of the authors.

4 © OECD 2008




DEV/DOC(2008)8

PREFACE

Political cycles represent a core issue for capital markets in developing and emerging countries. This paper analyses the intricate links between financial markets and emerging democracies and highlights changes in the ways analysts and investors react to political cycles in emerging markets.

Financial markets have, in the past, been particularly sensitive to political events. All the major financial crises in Latin America of the past decade and a half took place during an election year. Even in 2006, an unusually calm period in light of the number of presidential elections, markets remained highly sensitivity to elections: the day following Felipe Calderónʹs narrow victory in Julyʹs 2006 Mexican presidential elections, the stock market gained almost 5 per cent in a day, bond prices soared and the peso saw its biggest one‐day appreciation in six years.

In order to test the impact of the stability of democracies on financial markets, this paper uses a unique and untapped database of sovereign debt recommendations given by the most important investment banks in emerging economies, from 1997 to 2008.

The paper stresses two major results. Firstly, the political cycle is a determinant variable in explaining investment banks’ recommendations. Moreover, the relationship is particularly strong before electoral contests, suggesting that investment banks’ perceptions deteriorate considerably on the eve of presidential elections. Secondly, investment banks’ outlooks depend on the signal sent by candidates concerning the credibility of future economic policies. In particular, if candidates are not committed to defending sustainable macroeconomic policies, investment banks’ downgrade sovereign debt.

A clear policy conclusion is that prudent macro‐economic management is particularly relevant the year before and above all the year of the election. Precautionary measures are particularly welcome in order to anticipate and avoid painful stress if markets react negatively. A good example of precautionary macro‐economic management is the reduction, in election years, of foreign currency‐denominated debt and the pursuit of longer debt maturities.

Financial markets play a monitoring role during election campaigns, downsizing candidates´ unsustainable promises. The other side of the coin is, however, the financial overshooting that tends to go hand in hand with election cycles.

Javier Santiso Director, OECD Development Centre

Chair, OECD Emerging Markets Network (EmNet)

© OECD 2008 5


DEV/DOC(2008)8

RÉSUMÉ

Cet article étudie les interactions entre le cycle politique et les marchés de capitaux dans les pays émergents, en examinant comment les stratèges de Wall Street réagissent au plus important des évènements politiques en Amérique Latine: les élections présidentielles. Dans ce but, nous avons construit une base de données qui rassemble les recommandations portant sur la dette souveraine et émises par les principales banques d’investissement actives sur les marchés émergents de 1997 à 2008. L’analyse de l’impact des élections présidentielles sur les recommandations des banques d’investissement montre que le cycle politique est une variable clé pour expliquer la rétrogradation des titres souverains pendant les trois mois qui précèdent les élections présidentielles. Il apparaît aussi que la crédibilité des politiques macro‐économiques (budgétaires et monétaires) annoncées par les candidats lors des campagnes présidentielles joue un rôle décisif sur les recommandations des banques d’investissement. Mots clés: Marchés émergents, Information, Études des banques d’investissement, Élections. Classification JEL: D72, G11, G14, G15, G24

6 © OECD 2008


DEV/DOC(2008)8

ABSTRACT

This paper focuses on the interactions between the political cycle and capital markets in emerging economies, examining the way in which Wall Street strategists react to major Latin American political events, specifically presidential elections. For this purpose we construct a database of all sovereign bond recommendations of the major investment banks active in emerging bond markets from 1997 to 2008. Assessing the impact of presidential elections on investment banks’ recommendations, we conclude firstly, that the political cycle is a major determinant variable in explaining the downgrading of sovereign bonds in the three months prior to presidential elections. Secondly, the credibility of future macro (fiscal and monetary) policies announced by presidential candidates during campaigns stands out as an important determinant of investment banks’ recommendations. In particular, if candidates are not committed to defend sustainable macroeconomic policies, investment banks’ downgrade sovereign debt prior to elections. Keywords: Emerging Markets, Information, Investment Banks Research, Elections. JEL Classification: D72, G11, G14, G15, G24

© OECD 2008 7


DEV/DOC(2008)8

I. INTRODUCTION

Political cycles are a core issue for capital markets in emerging countries. Financial markets react to political events, whether cabinet reshuffling or elections, and tend to be particularly sensitive to the uncertainty of election outcomes, often overshooting in terms of spreads, foreign exchange and interest rate volatility. Indeed, one definition of emerging markets might be those countries where political uncertainty translates into important financial volatility. In this understanding, graduating from the emerging markets asset class implies a decoupling of the political and financial cycles, as we argued in a previous study (Blázquez and Santiso, 2004).

In developed countries, political outcomes such as presidential elections are not perceived, from a financial market point of view, to be the critical junctures they are in developing countries. That does not mean that they do not have resonance on financial markets (as stressed by Snowberg et al., 2007; Bernhard and Leblang, 2006a; and Leblang and Bernhard, 2006), but the magnitude and the scope of their impacts are not as strong as in emerging countries (Campello, 2007).

Consider the example of Latin America, a key region for emerging bond markets (in 2007 it accounted for nearly 57 per cent of the EMBI Global market capitalisation, the leading index provided by JP Morgan). All the major financial crises in the region over the past decade and a half coincided with election years: the Tequila crisis of 1994 was a presidential election year in Mexico (Santiso, 1999); the devaluation of the real at the beginning of 1999 took place a couple of months after the Brazilian elections of October 1998; and, again, in 2002, the financial crisis suffered by Brazil developed during a presidential election year (Martínez and Santiso, 2003; Santiso, 2006a; Jensen and Schmith, 2005), as did as the massive debt default in Argentina of the previous year. The 1980s debt crisis, ushered in by the Mexican default, also took place during an election year. The argument can be generalised to other emerging markets regions (Whitehead, 2006), where financial crises and political crises tend to go hand in hand (Chang, 2007).

Some studies have already underscored the influence of political events on financial markets. As pointed out by Bernhard and Leblang (2006b), political processes such as presidential and legislative elections, cabinet formations and referenda, have an impact on the behaviour of actors in capital markets. Incorporating political variables can also improve the predictive performance of models and crisis forecasting (Leblang and Satyanath, 2008). Portfolio allocations made by investors are also sensitive to political cycles and consequently exchange rates. During election periods, sovereign bond and stock market prices can also become extremely volatile. The role of political information is crucial in determining capital markets’ micro‐behaviour during political processes. This is particularly relevant in emerging countries, above all during presidential elections, as underlined in earlier work on the behaviour of bond 8 © OECD 2008


DEV/DOC(2008)8

spreads and risk premia during Brazilian election processes of the 1990s and early 2000s (Santiso, 2006a). More recently, other studies on other emerging regions such as Eastern Europe or Asia have similarly underlined the sensitivity of exchange rates to political variables (respectively Frieden, Leblang, and Valev, 2008; and Hays, Freeman and Nesseth, 2003).

Fear of uncertainty lies behind these results. First, there is the fear that incumbent parties adopt expansionary economic policies prior to elections to attract voters. Second, there are doubts about the credibility of major candidates’ economic policy platforms. High volatility in capital markets during electoral cycles can also be interpreted as a lack of commitment on the part of emerging democracies’ governments and political parties to credible and stable economic policies. At a more conceptual level, the over‐reaction of financial markets to elections in democracies raises the issue of the political preferences of financial actors. As stressed by Przeworski (1991), one of the characteristic features of democracy is precisely that outcomes appear uncertain. In a democracy, the results of an election or the parliamentary outcome of a proposed reform is always an open and uncertain issue. Therefore, electoral competition, collective choices and preferences crystallised during reform processes, are all part of the usual life of a democracy and at the same time, boosters of uncertainty to which financial markets tend to be very sensitive.

This present paper focuses on Latin America, both because of the importance of its bond markets and because of the active, if sometimes halting, process of democratic consolidation in the region. Latin America has dominated emerging bond markets over the past two decades, in terms of issuances, liquidity and asset allocations. International capital markets have been keenly sensitive to political events in the region since the return of democracy, which triggered the boom in capital bond markets.

This study analyses the intricate links between financial markets and emerging democracies and uncovers the changing patterns in analysts’ and investors’ reactions to political cycles in emerging markets. In this light, the 2006 political season is a landmark: a uniquely eventful year brimming with elections, surprises and drama, yet one in which, even at the height of the political hubbub, capital markets showed remarkably little volatility. Whereas previous election cycles sent investors heading for the hills, in 2006, with 80 per cent of the continent’s population heading to the polling booths, the markets maintained an Olympian calm. Clearly, it is difficult to compare electoral cycles from one year to another, given that international financial and economic conditions are not stable. For instance, the considerable increase of international liquidity across financial markets during 2006 could count as an important factor behind the relative stability of Latin American markets (in terms of sovereign bond spreads, exchange rates, equity market returns,…) over that period (see the argument along these lines by Izquierdo and Talvi, 2008).

In order to test the impact of the stability of democracies on financial markets, we use a unique and untapped database of sovereign debt recommendations given by the most important investment banks in emerging economies.

This paper addresses the following core questions. How big is the impact of electoral cycles on investment banks’ perceptions of Latin American economies? To what extent are

© OECD 2008 9


DEV/DOC(2008)8

investment banks’ recommendations sensitive to the credibility of presidential candidates’ announced economic‐policy platforms? Does stability of economic policies affect banks’ outlooks? Finally, by comparing the 2006 electoral cycle with previous cycles, can we conclude that the impact of electoral cycles on Wall Street strategies has declined?

The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. After reviewing the literature on the interactions of financial markets and elections in emerging democracies (section II) we describe the unique database used in this paper (section III), based on major investment banks recommendations’ on emerging markets between 1997 and 2008. In section IV, we discuss the interaction of politics and capital markets. We present stylised facts on the relationship between political processes and investment banks’ recommendations. Section V illustrates the sensitivity of emerging markets analysts over the past decade to political events like elections in emerging‐market democracies. More precisely, by using an ordered‐probit model, we test the impact of politics on investment banksʹ recommendations. Lastly in section VI we conclude, summarising the key findings of the paper and the policy implications of this research.

10 © OECD 2008


DEV/DOC(2008)8

II. CAPITAL MARKETS AND ELECTIONS IN EMERGING DEMOCRACIES: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Elections, the formation and dissolution of governments, removals of cabinet members, legislative decision‐making are all essential to a functioning democracy, but are inherently unpredictable phenomena. Although banks are sensitive to democratic transitions, increasing their lending in the years following democratisation (Rodríguez et al., 2008), it also appears that financial markets behave quite nervously in the face of regular democratic events such as elections in emerging countries.

The monitoring of politics by financial markets tends to intensify during election periods. Financial operators intensively covered political events during the meltdown of Argentina in 2001 and the subsequent collapse can be seen as a clear example of crisis in political governance, representation and legitimacy. Similarly, Mexico’s 1994 elections and the ‘Tequila crisis’ of 1995 and the South Korean presidential election in 1997 all captured analysts’ attention (Chang, 2002). Election years are therefore viewed as critical junctures from a financial investor’s point of view, increasing the density of reports incorporating political dimensions. In fact, when the behaviour of financial variables during election years in emerging markets is examined more closely, political events are also associated with high volatility. Bussière and Mulder (2000) found (for 22 emerging countries between the 1994 and 1997 period associated with the ‘Tequila’ and Asian crises), that elections and political volatility are significantly related to currency crises while coalition stability is not.

Political cycles, such as presidential elections, in emerging countries tend therefore to have strong impacts on capital markets’ behaviour and on market variables such as exchange rates, sovereign bond spreads and stock returns as well as on the information transmitted in capital markets (e.g., sovereign bond ratings or investment banks’ recommendations).

There are two main reasons that could explain the high impact of presidential elections on emerging capital markets. First, during electoral cycles, fiscal and monetary policies tend to be expansionary (Block and Vaaler, 2004). As pointed by Shi and Svensson (2006) and Brender and Drazen (2005), this is particularly true in developing countries. More precisely, if voters have a greater capacity to monitor fiscal policy, the increase of fiscal deficits during elections will be higher. Indeed, the importance of informed voters on fiscal outcomes around elections is crucial (See Shi and Svensson, 2006; Brender and Drazen, 2005). From a theoretical point of view, the traditional research literature indicates that incumbent government parties face incentives to implement expansionary economic policies in order to increase their popularity and support from voters during electoral years (Nordhaus, 1975; Hibbs, 1977; Alesina, 1987; Alesina, Roubini and Cohen, 1997). In particular, Rogoff (1990) shows that even rational voters might vote for

© OECD 2008 11


DEV/DOC(2008)8

incumbents that run fiscal deficits, given imperfect information problems. This view has been challenged more recently by other authors (Brender and Drazen, 2008).

Increased public expenditures around elections does not necessarily imply a deterioration in the fiscal deficit. As pointed out by Drazen and Eslava (2005) for the case of municipal elections in Colombia, the increase of capital expenditures by the incumbent party does not affect the fiscal deficit. Incumbent parties tend to increase expenditures in spending categories that will affect voters. This is particularly evident for emerging economies (Drazen and Eslava, 2005; Gonzalez, 2002; Khemani, 2004)1. Empirical research finds that incumbent parties facing re‐election, particularly incumbents from parties with left‐wing orientations2, have incentives to engage in unsustainable expansionary economic policies (Leblang, 2002).

Expansionary monetary policies have been widely observed during electoral cycles. Remmer (1993) finds that inflation is higher in Latin American countries during elections periods in the 1970s and 1980s. Block (2002) finds increased growth in money supply across Sub‐Saharan African countries during election years since the 1960s. Blomberg, Frieden and Stein (2005) argue that as an election approaches, the probability of maintaining a fixed exchange rate increases. As noted by the authors, “if political and economic factors make the peg difficult to sustain, of course, we should see an increase in the probability of leaving the exchange rate after an election”. The increase of monetary and/or fiscal policies during elections could potentially affect the credibility of economic regimes and hurt investors’ interests. In capital markets, bond or currency traders’ confidence is damaged. In emerging markets, this behaviour is critical because of the difficulty faced by the public sector to attract capital, needed to address a broad range of development objectives (Ames, 1987; Schuknecht, 1996; Alesina et al, 1999).

A second reason presidential elections affect emerging capital markets has to do with uncertainty concerning future economic policies. This is particularly relevant when (i) there is uncertainty about the incumbent party’s re‐election prospects, and (ii) the “outsider” party promotes unsustainable economic policies during campaigns. Indeed, as pointed by Pantzalis et al. (2000), “an expectation of an incumbent loss is associated with more uncertainty than when the incumbent is re‐elected”. Instability and uncertainty are central to understanding the links between financial markets and politics in emerging countries. More particularly, financial instability and financial market overreactions during electoral processes can be explained by uncertainty regarding institutional stability and continuity, rather by uncertainty linked to democracy itself. A case study in this regard is the Brazilian presidential election of 2002. In order to find an effective indicator that shows the influence of Brazilian presidential elections on financial markets, Martínez and Santiso (2003) use as a political uncertainty variable the popularity of the “outsider” candidate Lula in electoral polls.

12 © OECD 2008

1 For an extensive review of the literature regarding voters and fiscal policy around elections, see Eslava,

(2006). 2 By left‐wing parties, we mean those more concerned with unemployment and GDP growth and less

concerned with inflation. The preferences of right‐wing parties, in contrast, are the opposite (see Alesina et al., 1997 for a more detailed analysis of political ideologies and economic policies).


DEV/DOC(2008)8

Empirical evidence analysing the impact of politics on capital markets is abundant. Although the impact of electoral cycles for investors and financial intermediaries is strongly felt, the reaction of global financial markets to politics in emerging democracies may differ significantly within a single region, being dependent on the degree of democratisation and the transparency of the policy‐making process, the historical existence of democratic institutions, the scale of the government’s legislative majority and its political cohesion (Hays et al, 2003; MacIntyre, 2001).

Eichengreen, Rose and Wyploz (1995) were among the first to address the political dimension of financial crises, finding close links between political processes and exchange‐rate turbulence. Leblang and Satyanath (2006) find that institutional variables such as divided government and government turnover are important determinants for speculators’ behaviour and increase the likelihood of currency crises. Martínez and Santiso (2003) find a high and positive correlation between political uncertainty and sovereign risk premia during the 2002 Brazilian crisis.

Political colours in emerging democracies tend also to matter to financial markets. Block (2003) found that right‐wing governments in developing countries were less conducive to currency crises and that ‘strong’ governments (those with larger legislative majorities and those which face more fragmented legislative opposition) tend to be also less vulnerable to financial crises. Bond spreads for right‐wing incumbents tend to increase with the likelihood of left‐wing challengers’ victory (Block et al., 2003). Cho (2007) also found that bond investors tend to downgrade left‐wing governments when other economic and policy outcomes are controlled for. Investors may be willing to invest in left‐leaning governments over centre/right governments if leftist governments provide policy certainty (Cho, 2008).

Mukherjee and Leblang (2007) examine the relationship between political partisanship, interest rates and volatility of stock prices in two developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom. They find that traders in the stock market rationally expect higher (lower) post‐election interest rates during the incumbency of the left‐wing (right‐wing) party – Democrats and Labour (Republican and Conservative) – and in election years when they expect the left‐wing (right‐wing) party to win elections. Campello (2007) shows that, both in developed and developing countries, portfolio managers react to the prospect of a left turn in the political system by selling their holdings. They also tend to react positively when a change from left to right occurs and also when a right‐wing government succeeds another right‐wing government, suggesting that investors tend to value the maintenance both of market friendly policies and of continuity. Lastly, more recent studies showed, contrary to the conventional wisdom, that left‐leaning governments are more likely to be associated with higher stock market capitalisation than their counterparts from the right of the political spectrum (Gourevitch, Pinto, and Weymouth, 2008).

More generally, interaction between actors in capital markets and governments is crucial during political cycles. As pointed out by Santiso (2003), “exit” and “loyalty” options are at the heart of the confidence game between financial markets and politics. In contrast to “exit” cases, loyalty is directly linked to credibility. The propensity to remain loyal depends on the confidence attached to the actions of governments and political parties. One way that governments tend to © OECD 2008 13


DEV/DOC(2008)8

play this confidence game has been to signal credibility and commitments towards market friendly policies with the appointments of ministers of finance or central bankers with suitable pedigrees (mostly trained in the US, frequently with previous international experiences in international organisations such as the IMF or investment banks, etc.) (see Chwieroth, 2007). Changes in these key people might also affect financial markets, as underlined by empirical research done on central bankers: the replacement of a central bank governor negatively affects financial markets on the announcement day (Moser and Dreher, 2007). Central bank governor changes in emerging markets may convey important signals about future monetary policy.

The reaction of market variables to political events is evident. By studying the exchange rate, Leblang (2002) confirms that speculative attacks are more likely just after an election as compared to all other periods. Frieden, Ghezzi and Stein (2001) find that during presidential elections the average rate of nominal depreciation in the second month after the election reaches seven per cent, around 4.5 percentage points higher than in other periods, a result theoretically explained by Bonomo and Terra (2005). In the stock market, Lin and Roberts (2001) find that returns of a certain number of equities were affected by expectations about the outcome of the March 2000 presidential election in Chinese Taipei. Pantzalis et al. (2000) demonstrate that a positive reaction of the stock market to elections depends on the country’s degree of political, economic and press freedom as well as the incumbent’s re‐election chances. Concerning sovereign bond markets, Moser (2007) finds that sovereign bond spreads in Latin American countries during the period 1992‐2005 are affected by political instability, as measured by the turnover of finance ministers.

In additional to market variables, information transmitted to investors is also affected by political outcomes, with ratings agencies tending to downgrade sovereign bond ratings during electoral periods (Reinhart 2002; Reisen 2002). There is no democratic premium: democracies do not tend to pay lower interest rates than autocracies and do not benefit from a democratic premium by rating agencies (Saiegh, 2005). Block and Vaaler (2004) underline that credit rating agencies downgrade developing country ratings more often in election years, and do so by approximately one rating level. They found that bond spreads are higher in the 60 days before an election compared to spreads in the 60 days after an election and that spreads trend significantly downward in the 60 days before an election, but then flatten out in the 60 days after an election. More recently, Vaaler and McNamara (2008), using a sample of 18 developing countries during the period 1987‐2000, find that agency ratings decrease during election years in developing countries with left‐wing incumbent candidates. This effect decreases as the number of rating agencies competing in emerging countries increases. The results presented so far contrast with those of Archer et al (2007). By using a sample of fifty developing countries from 1987 to 2003 and studying sovereign bond ratings issued by Moody’s Investor Services, Standard and Poor’s and Fitch Ratings, they find that political factors, such as election cycles, have little effect on ratings.

Another fundamental source of information in capital markets are the recommendations given by investment banks to investors in capital markets. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no systematic and regular analysis of the impact of political cycles on the outlooks provided by Wall Street strategists and analysts on sovereign bond markets. This paper seeks to bridge this gap.

14 © OECD 2008


DEV/DOC(2008)8

III. DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA

In this section, we present the sources and explain the relevance of the data used for this paper. We use the information provided by investment banks to investors regarding their sentiments vis‐à‐vis public debt in emerging economies, and also data related to presidential elections in Latin American countries. Finally, we use financial and macroeconomic variables in order to control for the impact of presidential elections on recommendations.

The period analysed in this paper is from July 1997 to February 2008 and the frequency of observations is monthly. The nine countries included in this study – Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela – correspond to the largest Latin American economies, accounting for over 95 per cent of the total GDP of the region. They furthermore represent the major bond issuers within the emerging market asset class over the period.

We use the publications produced by the major investment banks operating in Latin American markets. All are foreign banks, US and European. In their weekly, monthly or quarterly reports they publish their recommendations for each individual emerging country, providing inputs for their clients, namely the “buy side” industry of portfolio asset managers, mutual funds, hedge funds, pension funds, etc. These recommendations represent a direct and strict link between financial intermediaries and investors and, as shown in previous research, they tend to have a significant impact on bond portfolio investors’ asset‐allocation decisions (Nieto Parra and Santiso, 2007).

The database is constituted by the recommendations of 13 investment banks, all of them major players in emerging bond markets as underwriters and dominant market makers: ABN AMRO (ABN), Barclays Capital (BARCLY), Bear Stearns (BS), Citigroup ‐ former Salomon Smith Barney ‐ (CITI), Credit Suisse ‐ former Credit Suisse First Boston ‐ (CSFB), Deutsche Bank (DB), Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein (DK), Goldman Sachs (GS), JPMorgan (JPM), Lehman Brothers (LB), Merrill Lynch (ML), Morgan Stanley (MS) and UBS (UBS). See Annex 1 for a description of these publications.

By collecting 699 reports issued by investment banks on emerging bond markets, we have over 5 000 recommendations to institutional investors from July 1997 to February 20083. No reports before this period are available, either in the websites or databases of the brokers. The investment banks included in this database manage as underwriters more than 85 per cent of the Latin American sovereign IPOs over the period considered (see Table 1).

© OECD 2008 15

3 For the period July 1997 to December 1999 the database contains only information from Citigroup.


DEV/DOC(2008)8

Table 1. Investment Banks’ Recommendations Database

Number of Observations July 1997‐February 2008 ABN BARCLY BS CITI CSFB DB DK GS JPM LB ML MS UBS TOTAL

Argentina 15 3 56 107 82 50 57 25 83 19 40 57 14 608Brazil 12 17 65 105 81 50 54 25 85 19 51 53 18 635Chile 11 15 41 110 82 0 0 25 83 19 0 30 10 426

Colombia 12 15 65 107 82 51 57 25 85 19 44 54 12 628Ecuador 1 16 58 106 67 51 53 25 81 18 46 41 15 578Mexico 15 15 63 107 78 50 55 25 85 19 49 50 16 627

Peru 1 16 65 104 80 51 54 25 83 19 47 53 14 612Uruguay 0 0 51 26 61 0 0 16 80 19 21 12 0 286

Venezuela 12 14 60 111 77 51 54 25 82 19 48 52 14 619TOTAL 79 111 524 883 690 354 384 216 747 170 346 402 113 5019

Part. Underwriting (%) 2,6 2,3 0,6 9,3 6,0 10,6 2,4 9,7 21,8 0,1 7,5 7,8 6,9 87,5

Source: The authors based on investment banks’ publications (for recommendations) and dealogic (for underwriting), 2008

The frequency of these publications is in most cases monthly. The recommendations that we use are those given regarding sovereign external debt. In order to compare the view of each bank towards Latin American countries at the same time, we have classified three types of recommendations: Overweight (the value of 1), Neutral (0) and Underweight (‐1), corresponding respectively to the cases of buying, maintaining and selling with respect to an index (e.g. EMBI+ calculated by JPMorgan).

Given overall portfolio constraints, a buy recommendation must be offset by a sell recommendation, implying that investment banks are constrained to underweight an emerging country in the composition of the portfolio when they issue a favourable/overweight outlook on another country. However, it does not necessary imply that recommendations are symmetrically distributed (i.e., the number of overweight recommendations are not necessary the same of underweight recommendations). Indeed, an overweight (underweight) recommendation could be compensated by more than one underweight (overweight) recommendation.

Election data draw upon two databases. The database compiled by IFES (International Foundation for Election Systems), accessible at http://www.electionguide.org/ is used for the period after 1998 and the database of the Observatorio Electoral Latinoamericano (http://www.observatorioelectoral.org/) is used for the period prior to 1998. To identify incumbent parties, political parties and results of the elections, we use the Political Database of the Americas (PDBA, http://pdba.georgetown.edu/) developed by Georgetown University.

Finally, the last type of data used in this paper relates to financial and macroeconomic indicators that could affect investment banks’ recommendations. These variables are used as control variables and may be divided into three categories. The first comprises external or “push” variables, such as US industrial production growth, and two indicators of global risk, namely US High Yield and VIX index (i.e., Chicago Exchange Volatility Index). The source of these variables is Thomson Datastream.

The second set of control variables are internal or “pull” macroeconomic variables. These variables represent macroeconomic conditions (domestic industrial production growth, inflation 16 © OECD 2008

http://www.electionguide.org/

http://www.observatorioelectoral.org/

http://pdba.georgetown.edu/


DEV/DOC(2008)8

rate, local interest rates and exchange rates) and structural conditions affecting the solvency of the state (interest on public bonds over exports of goods and services, public bonds over exports of goods and services and finally reserves over imports). Data is tracked from Thomson Datastream, and the GDF (Global Development Finance) database developed by the World Bank.

Lastly, we employ “pull” financial variables. These variables are the investment value of sovereign debt (i.e., EMBI Global index return)4, sovereign bond spreads (i.e., EMBI Global spread), the equity return in local stock markets, the relative size of the sovereign bond market (i.e., EMBI Global weight for each Latin American country), the development of the bond market (i.e., total debt trade volume over GDP), the liquidity of the sovereign bond market (i.e., bid‐ask spreads) and the sovereign bond ratings (i.e., monthly change of Standard and Poor’s rating). The source these variables is Thomson Datastream, EMTA (Emerging Markets Trade Association), Bloomberg and Standard and Poor’s.

© OECD 2008 17

4 More precisely, we use one month, 3‐month and finally 12‐month sovereign bond returns.


DEV/DOC(2008)8

IV. INVESTMENT BANKS’ RECOMMENDATIONS AND ELECTIONS IN EMERGING DEMOCRACIES: STYLISED FACTS

In this section we present the main stylised facts of the relationship between presidential elections and outlooks given by Wall Street analysts and strategists.

Politics and capital markets in Latin America

Presidential elections in emerging economies are an important event5 for market analysts and in the subsequent strategy of actors in financial markets, such as institutional investors, sell‐side businesses, and investment banks’ debt origination.

The electoral cycle, and presidential elections in particular, seems to be an important variable in the analysis of investment decisions in the financial markets. Indeed, elections affect and are affected by capital markets. Depending on economic policies proposed by candidates and winners, financial agents react, either with strong and stable capital inflows or, at the other extreme, by contributing to financial instability and “sudden stop” problems (see Chang, 2006 for a theoretical point of view of the interactions between capital flows and elections in emerging economies).

In this section we study the impact of politics on investment banks’ recommendations. Although we do not argue that the election of a president is the only variable analysed by research departments, we note that its influence is considerable. A publication by an important investment bank provides evidence of the relevance of the political cycle to recommendations concerning emerging portfolio allocation.

Credit Suisse ‐ former CSFB ‐ (11 May 2006 Fixed Income Research Sovereign Strategy Daily):“We are moving to underweight in Mexico due to expectations of increased spread volatility ahead of the July presidential elections. We have moved from underweight towards a neutral stance on Peruvian assets because, in our view, political risk has declined as opinion polls show Alan Garcia as the likely winner in the second‐round presidential vote that will be held on Sunday, June 4”.

Market analysts, and in general private actors as a whole, are attentive to political issues and scrutinise in detail critical junctures like elections in emerging democracies. As pointed out by Persson and Tabellini (1994), central bankers and governments change over time, and private actors necessarily face uncertainty concerning policies to be followed by the new policy maker.

5 In this study we take the presidential election date as a given date. See Bernhard and Leblang (2007) for

the case in which incumbent politicians use their expectations of future economic performance to evaluate the possibility to call an early election.

18 © OECD 2008


DEV/DOC(2008)8

In order to anticipate which kind of policies might be adopted, the private sector interprets signals sent by policy makers.

In particular, financial markets’ radar is keenly tuned during periods of intense political activity. During election processes in particular, investment banks recommend portfolio allocations to investors depending on the credibility with which they perceive candidates’ economic policy platforms, the evolution of the polls and the behaviour of incumbent parties. In cases in which investment banks do not expect any risk in presidential elections, they transmit that sentiment to institutional investors. A brief look at investment banks’ publications prior to “no risk elections” confirms the favourable view concerning asset allocation for this kind of countries:

Citigroup remarked (August 23, 2006 Global Economic Outlook and Strategy) about the presidential elections in Brazil: “whoever wins the election, the broad tenets of macroeconomic policies, including fiscal responsibility, inflation targeting, and a floating exchange rate, likely will remain in place”. Similarly Credit Suisse ‐ former CSFB ‐ some days before the election date in Chile (Debt Trading Monthly, 02 December 2005), “We would expect bondholders, particularly abroad, to remain largely unconcerned about the final outcome of the elections, given the strength of the country’s institutional framework and the pro‐fiscal discipline stance of the main candidates”.

However, investment banks’ signals to investors are very clear in cases where a candidate is perceived to be ‘risky’. In contrast to the example above, the same candidate, Lula da Silva, was once perceived as a significant threat to the continuity of market‐friendly economic policy in Brazil. The aspiring president was nicknamed “Lula Preta” (i.e. “Dark Moon”):

According to Goldman Sachs (Emerging Markets Strategy November 07, 2002), “We remain cautious about the prospects for this credit on the back of our perception that the incoming administration is poorly prepared to tackle the hard challenges of restoring confidence, stabilising the stock of net public debt, and simultaneously engineering a recovery of economic activity”... “Given the balance of risks, and the recovery of asset prices, we remain comfortable with our recommendations to Underweight external debt and short BRL interest rates”.

A similar pattern is observed during recent Peruvian elections. During the 2006 presidential elections, candidate Alan Garcia was perceived as the market‐friendly candidate. This perception contrasts with past elections in which ex‐president Garcia was perceived as a risky candidate, given the corruption scandals during his presidency in the 80’s:

JPMorgan (3 May 2001 Emerging Markets Outlook) points in 2001 during the Toledo‐Garcia campaign: “Key is whether Garcia would avoid the temptation of boosting growth through un‐orthodox means if the private sector is not fully engaged in, say, one to two years into his administration. Some local bankers fear that even a mere victory by Garcia in the runoff could spark a run on deposits and/or capital flight”. By contrast in 2006, CSFB (Global Emerging Markets Outlook, 24 March 2006) notes that the risk in Peruvian elections was due to Humalla or Lourdes Flores, becoming Garcia the market‐friendly candidate “The surge of populist presidential candidate Ollanta Humala in the polls has increased Peru’s political risk”.

© OECD 2008 19


DEV/DOC(2008)8

Opinions and expectations formed by actors in capital markets regarding future economic policies could turn out to be wrong, of course. This is the case in Brazil with Lula da Silva in 2002. As is pointed out by Archer et al (2007), there are often staggering differences between the populist campaign platforms offered by candidates and their actual policies once in office. However, signals sent by presidential candidates that lack credibility represent a risk for actors in capital markets. Indeed, the impact of these signals on both economic growth and stability of market variables is costly.

Finally, sometimes information transmitted by investment banks might be erroneous and costly to investors. For instance, some of the investment banks anticipated a victory of candidate Noboa in the 2006 elections in Ecuador, based on pre‐election surveys:

Bear Stearns (October 16, 2006 EM SOVEREIGN / LATIN AMERICA) is a good example of the investment banks’ strategies few days before the election date. “A scenario of Alvaro Noboa being the next president of Ecuador (now quite likely) is a relatively positive outcome. On the plus side, he is a market‐friendly candidate” …. “Despite the impressive rebound in prices seen today (Monday, October 16) as a result of the positive election surprise, we continue to see room for upside. Hence, we now think that this credit will outperform the market through the end of the year”.

Indeed, for a large majority of countries, political processes are significant in the eyes of market participants. Concerning Wall Street’s strategists and analysts, in annex 2, we present the recommendations given by investment banks to Latin American countries by taking into account the presidential elections dates. In a large number of presidential events6, we observe a common pattern. There is a downturn in the recommendations (i.e. they tend to turn more negative) given by investment banks prior to elections followed by an upturn after the elections (i.e. they tend to become more positive). This pattern is observed above all in electoral cycles in which fear about the credibility of future economic policies is present. More generally, in order to determine the behaviour of capital markets’ strategists and analysts during electoral periods, we calculate the average of the recommendations given by investment banks during nine months prior to and following presidential elections (0 being the election date). We apply a similar methodology to that of Stein et al (2004) and Stein et al (2005) for the case of the nominal and real exchange rates respectively.

6 See Brazil in October 2002, Colombia in May 2002, Ecuador in July 1998, Ecuador in November 2002,

Ecuador in November 2006, Mexico in July 2000, Mexico in July 2006, Peru in May 2000, Peru in June 2006.

20 © OECD 2008


DEV/DOC(2008)8

Figure 1. Investment banks’ recommendations around presidential elections

‐0.4

‐0.3

‐0.2

‐0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

‐9 ‐8 ‐7 ‐6 ‐5 ‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Und

erweight Overweight

0 = election month

Source: The authors based on investments banksʹ publications.

Notes: Banksʹ recommendations can be classified into three groups: ʺoverweightʺ (1), ʺneutralʺ (0) and ʺunderweightʺ (‐1). The index is calculated as the arithmetic average of all published recommendations. The Latin American countries covered are Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. The dataset covers the period from July 1997 to February 2008, including 23 non‐overlapping presidential elections. For elections with a second (run‐off) round, the second round is taken as the election date.

Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between presidential elections and recommendations issued by investment banks. An increase in the recommendations means that investment banks have a more favourable view of Latin American sovereign bond assets. When the recommendations are close to 0, it means that investment bank analysts recommend remaining neutral in sovereign bond assets. Investment banks start to downgrade sovereign bonds three months prior to presidential elections. The considerable downgrade of recommendations three months before elections is followed by negative recommendations until the election date. Finally, as uncertainty concerning political outcome disappears, investment banks’ outlooks on emerging countries improve considerably, recommending neutral positions in sovereign bonds and later turning positive.

In order to check the robustness of this stylised fact, we use a simple panel data analysis:

∑−=

++=9

90Re

titittit monthc εαα (1)

where is the median of the recommendations given by investment banks to country

i during the month t; is a dummy variable taken the value of 1 for the country i and during the month t. t is in the interval [‐9,+9] representing 19‐month window centred on presidential elections.

itcRe

itmonth

Results are presented in annex 3 (Panel A) for Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and country Fixed Effects (FE) regressions. From this simple econometric analysis we find that dummy

© OECD 2008 21


DEV/DOC(2008)8

variables indicating three, two and one month prior to elections are negatively and statistically significant at 1 per cent. Moreover, between three and one month prior to elections the negative coefficient is high in comparison with the whole interval studied. These results are consistent in both OLS and FE regressions. Stylised facts confirms that investment banks’ perceptions deteriorate considerably just before presidential electoral results. Indeed, the coefficient on the one month dummy variable prior to election is high (‐0.38 for FE and ‐0.36 for OLS regressions).

These results contrast with the real exchange rate pattern around elections in which the negative impact of presidential elections is observed after the election (see figure 2 for the period 1997‐2008). There is an appreciation of the real exchange rate prior to elections (2.2 per cent over seven months) followed by a strong depreciation (3.5 per cent in the two months following the election). From month five, the real exchange returns to approximately the level observed before the initial appreciation.

Figure 2. Real exchange rates around presidential elections 1997-2008

103.0

102.5

102.0

101.5

101.0

100.5

100.0

99.5

99.0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9‐9 ‐8 ‐7 ‐6 ‐5 ‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2

0 = election month

Source: The authors based on Thomson Datastream.

Notes: The real exchange rate is calculated with respect to the US economy. Data is rebased so that the month of the presidential election (time 0) = 100. An increase in the index represents a depreciation against the dollar. The Latin American countries covered are Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. Averaging is geometric in order to reduce the effects of outliers. The dataset covers the period from July 1997 to February 2008, including 23 non‐overlapping presidential elections. For elections with a second (run‐off) round, the second round is taken as the election date.

This pattern is confirmed by research studying the impact of presidential elections on capital‐market variables. A variety of papers find that depreciations of the nominal and real exchange rates occur in the months succeeding the presidential elections (Bonomo and Terra, 2005; Frieden et al, 2001; Stein et al, 2005). As noted by these authors, different causes could explain depreciations of the exchange rate after presidential elections. All of them are stem from an over‐valued pre‐election currency. First, exchange‐rate adjustments tend to be postponed as long as possible. Outgoing presidents avoid devaluing in the months prior to elections in order to limit the damage to their electoral chances or those of their party’s candidate (Stein et al., 2005). 22 © OECD 2008


DEV/DOC(2008)8

Indeed, Blomberg et al. (2005) argue that the probability of abandoning fixed exchange rates is small prior to elections, and large following them. Second, increases in government spending (much of it on non‐tradable goods) prior to elections leads to currency appreciations, only to depreciate later (Bonomo and Terra, 2005).

In other cases, pre‐emptive depreciations of the exchange rate occur just prior to elections, perhaps because policy makers fear capital marketsʹ judgments on the sustainability of economic policies (for example Mexico in 2006, and Brazil in 2002). The link with the public debt markets arises because market participants tend to be forward‐looking when assessing the sustainability of the foreign‐exchange anchor prior to elections. Precisely because they anticipate declines in the exchange rate following an election, investment banks downgrade Latin American public debt prior to elections.

Presidential electoral cycles prior and since 2006

There were elections in 2006 in all the large countries of Latin America other than Argentina. Over 80 per cent of the regionʹs population went to the polls to elect their head of state, a quite exceptional total7. Figure 3 illustrates the high number of presidential elections with respect to previous years. In spite of this high density of electoral events, and contrary to previous election years with high densities, this time Latin American financial markets did not experienced major disruptions.

© OECD 2008 23

7 More precisely ten presidential elections in less than one year: Chile (January for the second round),

Costa Rica (February), Haiti (February), Peru (April for the first round and June for the second round), Colombia (May), Mexico (July), Brazil (October), Ecuador (October for the first round and November for the second round), Nicaragua (November) and Venezuela (December).


DEV/DOC(2008)8

Figure 3. Latin America: Number of presidential elections

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Source: The authors based on http://www.electionguide.org and http://www.observatorioelectoral.org/

Notes: The Latin American countries covered are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. For elections with a second (run‐off) round, the date of the final round is used.

It is not straightforward to compare the effects of electoral cycles in different years, given the variations in the international financial and economic context. The relative stability of 2006, for example, may have been attributable to the generally favourable liquidity in financial markets and favourable external conditions at that time (Izquierdo and Tavli, 2008, Hartelius et al, 2008).

For this reason, investment‐bank recommendations may be more useful than other indicators of capital marketsʹ confidence, since – as explained in next section – such recommendations filter out exogenous factors. During 2006 overall recommendations for the region stayed out of negative territory with an average value of 0.13. This is better than previous electoral cycles in the region. In 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2002 average recommendations were ‐0.13, 0.09, 0.07 and 0.02 respectively.

Figure 4 takes this further and looks at the evolution of market analysts’ perceptions of Latin American policies over time. Bank recommendations are divided in two sub‐samples covering elections before and after the start of 2006. In both subsamples recommendations fell prior to elections, but for the latter group remained above those of previous electoral cycles.

24 © OECD 2008




DEV/DOC(2008)8

Figure 4. Investment banks’ recommendations around presidential elections

‐0.4

‐0.3

‐0.2

‐0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

‐9 ‐8 ‐7 ‐6 ‐5 ‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Before 2006 Since 2006Und

erweight

Overw

eight

Source: The authors based on investments banksʹ publications.

Notes: Banksʹ recommendations can be classified into three groups: ʺoverweightʺ (1), ʺneutralʺ (0) and ʺunderweight ʺ(‐1). The Latin American countries covered are Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. Dataset covers the period from July 1997 to February 2008, including 15 presidential elections before 2006 and 8 presidential elections since 2006. For elections with a second (run‐off) round, the second round is taken as the election date.

In order to check the robustness of this result, using simple econometric techniques, we run the regression presented in equation (1) of this section for these two sub‐samples. Results are presented in annex 3 (Panel B). With respect to the first sub‐sample (before 2006), the coefficients on the three, two and one month prior to elections dummy variables are high and statistically significant at 1 per cent. At the presidential election date this coefficient is significant at 5 per cent. In particular, one month prior to the election process, this coefficient is close to ‐0.5 in the FE and OLS regressions. As in the case of the regression for the full sample, this coefficient increases as the election approaches. By contrast, in the second sub‐sample (since 2006), time dummy variables are not statistically significant, neither in OLS nor in country FE regressions8. Moreover, the value of the coefficient one month prior to the election is far smaller than in the case prior to 2006 (‐0.17 in FE and ‐0.14 in OLS regressions).

Regression results suggest that the impact of elections on recommendations decreased in 2006 with respect to earlier electoral cycles. These results must be interpreted with caution given that the length of the two sub‐samples differs. Indeed, the smaller number of observations for the latter period (only two years long) may itself explain why the effect of the 2006 electoral cycle is not significant.

8 The exception is two months prior to presidential election. Both the OLS and FE coefficients are

significant, but only at the 10 per cent level in both regressions.

© OECD 2008 25


DEV/DOC(2008)8

V. HYPOTHESES OF THE MODEL AND ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF ELECTIONS ON BANKS’ RECOMMENDATIONS

In this section we first establish the hypotheses that we test empirically regarding the impact of elections on investment banks’ recommendations given to sovereign debt. Second, we present the most important results of a model that estimates the determinants of the recommendations given by investment banks in Latin American countries.

Hypotheses of the model and econometric analysis of the impact of elections on investment banks’ recommendations

This section sets out the hypotheses to be tested regarding the impact of political issues on investment banks’ recommendations on sovereign debt. The main results of the model estimating the determinants of banks’ recommendations in Latin America are then presented.

Hypotheses

Section IV outlined the impact of political cycles on investment banks’ strategists and analysts. Preliminary results suggest that political events have a significant impact on sovereign debt recommendations issued by investment banks in Latin American countries. Specifically, prior to elections, investment banks downgrade sovereign debt issued by countries. Consistent with this finding we expect that:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Presidential elections in Latin American countries have a negative impact on recommendations issued by investment banks. This effect is particularly significant prior to election date.

In order to test this hypothesis we define a window dummy variable that takes the value of 1 starting three months before and ending three months after elections. Additionally, we define another set of dummy variables in order to take into account of presidential campaigns on banks’ recommendations. For that purpose, we define a window dummy variable equal to 1 three months prior to elections (0 otherwise).

In analysing investment banks’ reports several factors affecting analysts and strategists’ behaviour around elections may be identified. The risk of non credible future economic policies may be one of the most important factors determining recommendations during electoral cycles. Uncertainty regarding the scope of policy switches is a key driver of financial markets’ negative expectations regarding electoral outcomes. In political systems with fewer ʺveto playersʺ this uncertainty regarding the future political preferences and in particular the stability of policies tends to increase ‐‐ which is usually the case of emerging democracies plagued with fewer and lower quality veto players.

26 © OECD 2008


DEV/DOC(2008)8

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Presidential candidates’ signals concerning the credibility of future economic policies have an impact on outlooks issued by investment banks on sovereign debt. Anticipations are particularly important in this respect. Where major candidates’ future economic policies are considered non credible, recommendations are likely to be negative.

In countries with solid systems of checks and balances, such as developed OECD democracies, the negative anticipations of financial markets regarding electoral outcomes tend to be lower. In such settings, institutions are perceived as solid anchors that limit the scope of policy swings; the greater the number of veto players, the narrower the policy swings (Henisz and Mansfield, 2006). Investments increase with the policy stability that veto players provide (Fatas and Mihov, 2006).

Governments sometimes attempt to overcome this credibility failure by making policy changes more difficult (Keefer and Stasavage, 2002, 2003), importing stability from abroad; as well, governments can gain policy credibility by adhering to strict rules, either monetary or fiscal. Re‐elections tend to diminish the intensity of this uncertainty, as the sitting president remains in power. When immediate re‐elections are not possible, as is frequently the case in Latin America, another way to deal with expectations regarding policy stability is to signal, before elections, the menu of policies that will be pursued in case of victory. The credibility issue, however, does not disappear, as promises by candidates can be viewed ‐‐ with reason ‐‐ as lacking credibility. Once elected, the credibility issue might remain. Here again, presidents can look for strategies to signal more credible commitments.

Methodologically, this study must measure candidates’ commitment to credible economic policies. In absence of an indicator measuring the enthusiasm of presidential candidates for such policies during their hypothetical mandate, we resort a proxy that analyses the signals that candidates send to the international financial community (e.g., foreign investors, analysts and bankers) during presidential campaigns: a standard publication, here the economic and political weekly The Economist.

The policy pronouncements of candidates were assessed to deem them credible or not. In particular, a pronouncement is deemed non‐credible if reports express fears:

1. that expansionary fiscal policy will weaken debt sustainability;

2. that debt payments might be suspended or renegotiated;

3. that monetary policy will be inflationary;

4. that an independent central bank or inflation targeting regime, where one exists, will be abandoned;

5. that populist policies will be emulated.

We use a dummy variable equal to 1 if programmes and speeches described by The Economist show that there is fear that candidates are not committed to a credible economic regime (see annex 4 for a detailed description of the construction of this dummy variable), and 0 otherwise.

© OECD 2008 27


DEV/DOC(2008)8

Figure 5 presents the number of presidential elections in which candidates sent negative signals concerning the credibility of future economic policies during the period 1997‐2008. For the sample as a whole (the blue bar at right) the economic policies of at least one of the major candidates were seen as non‐credible in more than half the elections. However, results differ markedly among countries. No threat of non‐credible policies was perceived in Colombia (run alternately by political forces sharing the same market‐oriented policies) or in Chile (run by the same governmental coalition during the entire period and with political forces sharing the same credible agenda). Indeed, non‐credible economic policy rarely arises in press coverage of elections in Chile9. While differing on details, all leading Chilean presidential candidates in the period covered supported the country’s counter‐cyclical fiscal rules and inflation‐targeting framework.

For Mexico and Brazil, non‐credibility was an issue only sporadically. Among the three presidential elections that took place in Brazil only one (October 2002) gave rise to credibility concerns. This was of course the initial election of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, discussed in detail above. In Mexico the unsuccessful presidential bid of populist Andrés Manuel López Obrador in 2006 was seen as a possible threat to the continuity of credible economic policies.

At the other end of the scale, Venezuela, Ecuador and Argentina all experienced significant swings in their policy orientations and were characterised by elections in which the variation between the economic policy platforms offered to the electorate was extreme.

Figure 5. Non credible policies announced by candidates (1997-2008)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

1

2

3

4

Chile

Colombia

Uruguay

Brazil

Mexico

Peru

Argentina

Ecuado

r

Vene

zuela

Total

% of total elections

Elections with non credible policies announced (right axis)

Number of elections with non credible policies announced

Source: The authors based on The Economist.

Note: Countries analysed are Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela during the period July 1997‐ February 2008, covering 23 presidential elections.

9 For instance, at the end of 1999 and the beginning of 2000, media attention was focused on Pinochet’s

arrest in London. From September 1999 until March 2000, nine articles on the Pinochet case appeared in The Economist compared with three related to the presidential elections.

28 © OECD 2008


DEV/DOC(2008)8

In order to determine whether candidates with non economic platforms have a high likelihood of being elected, we define a dummy variable equal to 1 if a presidential race is between “economically credible candidates”. In order to define competition during elections we use the methodology elaborated by Stein et al (2005): we call an election competitive if the difference between votes of first and second presidential candidates is less than 15 percentage points. This variable equals 1 in presidential elections in which there is a “non economically credible candidate” running, or if he obtained a large majority (higher than 15 percentage points) of votes10.

There is however a risk of oversimplification in attributing the impact of elections on investment banks’ recommendations only to credibility. Other factors such as economic policy instability and uncertainty about the outcome of elections can affect investment banks’ behaviour during electoral cycles:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Uncertainty during presidential elections is an explanatory variable for investment banks’ outlooks on sovereign debt. In particular, the high likelihood of continuity of economic policies may have a positive impact on recommendations issued by investment banks (H3A). More general, the lack of uncertainty concerning the final outcome of presidential elections improves investment banks’ outlooks on sovereign debt (H3B).

In section III we note that, according to research literature, incumbent‐left wing parties may negatively impact market variables. The idea of this hypothesis is different. We suppose that, in the eyes of investment banks’ recommendations, continuity is preferable, even if incumbents are pursuing non credible policies. Indeed, this hypothesis argues that recommendations are used by investors to determine short‐term allocations and consequently are relatively unconcerned by long‐term or structural factors11.

With presidential elections coming up, all temporal horizons become focused on the very short term. Uncertainty is a crucial variable tracked by investment banks. Uncertainty for financial markets means volatility of sovereign bond returns and consequently, foreign actors in capital markets could prefer certainty on the future economic policies. By observing investment banks’ publications, we note that in order to test uncertainty, monitoring of the polls is important for these banks12.

10 The sources of the information of electoral results are IFES (http://www.electionguide.org/), PDBA

(http://pdba.georgetown.edu/) and Observatorio Electoral Latinoamericano (http://www.observatorioelectoral.org/).

11 Santiso (2003), based on a questionnaire administered to investors, determines that fund managers change portfolio allocations every three months and are under pressure to obtain profits in the short‐term.

12 All the assumptions given by the investment banks concerning the result of the elections in Latin American countries take as principal input results of local polls. As a result, in order to obtain the accuracy of the polls and give a recommendation for each Latin American country, investment banks study in detail past performances of pollsters. See for example “Don’t give up on Latin pollsters” by CSFB (Emerging Market Economics, 04 December 2006).

© OECD 2008 29


http://pdba.georgetown.edu/


DEV/DOC(2008)8

In order to test this hypothesis we take into account two variables. First, we provide a general definition of certainty. We use competition among candidates during elections as a proxy variable for certainty regarding the election outcome. We define non‐competition and consequently certainty in elections as a case of a difference between votes of first and second presidential candidates higher than 15 percentage points. In this case (hypothesis 3B), the dummy variable takes the value of 1 and 0 otherwise.

Second, we restrict the definition of (un)certainty to (in)stability of economic policies. Stability is secured in the case of incumbent parties winning uncompetitive elections (hypothesis 3A). In other words, when the difference between votes of the incumbent and the challenger is higher than 15 percentage points, we suppose that investment banks’ are less nervous about electoral cycles. To test this hypothesis, we use the interaction dummy variable “no‐competition*incumbent winner”.

Finally, inspired by stylised facts presented in section IV, we argue that the impact of political cycle on investment banks’ recommendations has decreased since the electoral cycle of 2006:

Hypothesis 4 (H4): The impact of presidential elections on investment banks has decreased considerably since the 2006 electoral cycle.

Econometric analysis

Recommendations are qualitative variables, discrete‐valued indicators of sovereign debt investment value in emerging economies. Most of investment banks class these recommendations on three categories: overweight (buying position with respect to an index), neutral (maintaining position with respect to an index) and underweight (selling position with respect to an index).

We therefore make use of the ordered‐probit model in order to test the impact of political

elections on investment banks’ recommendations. Let be the median of investment banks’ recommendations given to country i at period t. Given that each bank recommendation could be positive (+1), neutral (0) and negative (‐1), the median of these recommendations given to country i at period t can take the value of +1, +0.5, 0, ‐0.5 and ‐1. Consider an unobservable variable that maps values of the explanatory variables (right hand side of equation 2) into

. The first part of the ordered‐probit model relates explanatory variables to by means of a linear equation:

itcRe

itZ

itcReitZ

itititititit

ititititk

tkj

itjit

electionbelectionnocompincnocomp

nomfafelectionbelectionelectionpushpullZ

εββββ

ββββγα

+++++

++++++= ∑∑==

0606* 7654

3210

3

1

15

1

(2)

The second part of the ordered‐probit model links to according to: itZ itcRe

30 © OECD 2008


DEV/DOC(2008)8

[[[[⎪

⎪⎪

⎩

⎪⎪⎪

⎨

⎧

∞∈+∈+∈∈−

∞∈−

=

),1),5.0

),0),5.0),(1

Re

4

43

32

21

1

μμμμμμμμ

it

it

it

it

it

it

ZifZifZifZifZif

c (3)

where the parameters jμ define the partitions of the range of associated with each

value of a rating. itZ

The explanatory variables are classified as pull variables, push variables and political variables. The 15 variables correspond to internal variables that could affect investment banks’ recommendations. These variables are:

itpull

1. The exchange rate, measured as the annual variation (in percentage).

2. The spread of the sovereign bond spreads, measured as the level of the EMBI Global spread as well as the 3‐months differences of the EMBI Global spread.

3. The local interest rate, measured as the level of interest rate as well as the monthly difference.

4. The equity return, measured as the annual return of local stock markets returns.

5. The CPI, measured as the annual inflation rate.

6. The Industrial production, measured as the annual rate of the industrial production.

7. The interest paid of public bonds over exports of good and services.

8. The level of public bonds over exports of good and services.

9. The international reserves over imports of good and services.

10. Weight of the local sovereign bond market, measured as the EMBI Global weight for each country i

11. Sovereign Bond returns measured as the monthly, 3‐months and 12‐months returns from EMBI Global return index.

12. Sovereign ratings, measured as the monthly difference of the sovereign bond ratings of Standard and Poors’s. We use a linear transformation of ratings. Higher ratings correspond to higher values (e.g., a bond rated D scores 1 and a bond rated AAA scores 23).

13. Depth of bond market measured as the quarterly trade volume of bond markets (private and public) over GDP.

14. Volatility of sovereign bond returns measured as the standard deviation of EMBI Global returns during last 6 months and 12 months.

15. Liquidity of the market measured as bid‐ask spreads.

© OECD 2008 31


DEV/DOC(2008)8

The three variables correspond to external variables that could affect investment banks’ recommendations. These variables are:

itpush

1. The US industrial production measured as the annual industrial production growth.

2. Global risks measured as 3‐months difference of the US high yield of the US corporate bonds and VIX index which is calculated from the implied volatilities of a wide range of S&P 500 index options.

The variables , and correspond to the dummy variables used to test the impact of investment banks’ recommendations on months around elections ( ), prior to elections ( ) and during and after elections ( ). According to results presented in previous section, we use a 7‐month window (‐3 through +3) for the variable , 3‐month window (‐3 through ‐1) for the variable and 4‐month window (0 through +3) for the variable . These three variables are used to test H1. H1 is confirmed if

itelection itbelection

belection

itafelection

it

itelection it

afelection

itafelection

itelection

0

itbelection

β and 1β are significant with 0β < 0 and 1β < 2β (with 1β < 0).

The variable represents the case in which non‐credible economic policies are announced by the leading candidates during campaigns. It is used to test H2. H2 is confirmed if

itnomf

3β is significant and negative ( 3β < 0).

The variables and represent respectively incumbent parties winning an election and the low level of competition during elections. The interaction term * captures the stability of political regimes. These variables are used to test H3. H3 is confirmed if

itinc itnocomp

itinc itnocomp

4β and 5β are significant with 4β < 0 (hypothesis 3B) and 5β < 0 (hypothesis 3A).

Finally, variables and are used to determine respectively the impact of presidential elections since 2006 and before that year. Both variables are used to test H4. H4 is confirmed if

itelection06

7

itelectionb 06

β is significant and, in absolute values, 6β < 7β (with 7β < 0).

Results are presented in annex 5. First we expose the regression presenting only control variables (first regression in annex 5). Second we analyse the hypotheses introduced above.

Most of the control variables explaining recommendations are directly linked to the sovereign bond market. Indeed, the level of sovereign bond spreads, solvency indicators such as the ratio of public bonds over exports and the ratio of international reserves over imports, 12‐month and 3‐month sovereign bond returns, changes in sovereign bond ratings and development of the bond market (trading volume over GDP) are statistically significant variables explaining banks’ recommendations. More precisely, as expected, increases in past bond returns have a positive impact on recommendations. Improvement in solvency indicators and favourable changes of sovereign bond ratings positively affect recommendations given by investment banks. Moreover, investment banks’ outlooks react positively to higher trading volumes over GDP. We expect an inverse relationship between of the level of sovereign bond spreads and recommendations; however, we could attribute the positive relationship between

32 © OECD 2008


DEV/DOC(2008)8

recommendations and bond spreads to investment opportunities. Indeed, when the sovereign bond spread is low, the likelihood of high returns on investment is small and recommendations can consequently be “pessimistic”. Finally, the only control variable statistically significant (though only at 10 per cent) which it is not directly related to the sovereign bond market is growth of industrial production. As expected, it has a positive impact on recommendations.

With respect to push variables (i.e., US industrial production, US high yield and VIX index), we note that they are not statistically significant. The results summarised here for control variables are valid for all regressions presented in annex 513.

Concerning hypothesis 1 (H1), we note that presidential elections have a negative impact on banks’ behaviour ( 0β < 0) and it is significant at 1 per cent. When we concentrate in the 3‐months prior to elections ( 1β ) and after elections ( 2β ), we find that the first coefficient is smaller than the second ( 1β < 2β < 0) and it is statistically significant at 1 per cent. Additionally both coefficients are negative. H1 is confirmed.

Hypothesis 2 (H2) and hypothesis 3 (H3) are tested. More precisely, we test H2 during two periods. First, we test this hypothesis around elections (window dummy between month ‐3 and month +3) and second prior to elections. First, we note that H2 is confirmed around elections (regressions IV, V, VI and VII). Indeed, investment banks downgrade countries in which there is a fear that a non‐credible candidate wins presidential elections. Moreover, coefficients are statistically significant at 1 per cent. Non‐credible economic policies dummy variable is also negative before elections (regressions VIII, IX, X and XI). In absolute values, coefficients are higher with respect to previous case and are significant at 1 per cent (the exception being regression IX in which it is statically significant at 5 per cent). Indeed, by including the dummy variable non‐credible policies of candidates ( ) during the 3‐months prior to elections, we find that there is an additional fixed cost for these risky countries prior to elections (coefficient

itnomf

3β higher in absolute values than 1β and 2β ).

Hypothesis H3A relates to incumbent parties winning non‐competitive elections (incumbent leader in annex 5). The impact of an incumbent party leader in an election is not statistically significant (regressions VI, VII, X and XI). Hypothesis 3A is rejected meaning that incumbent parties re‐elected in non‐competitive elections do not affect investment banks’ recommendations. Moreover, the interaction variable (incumbent leader*non‐credible policies) is not statistically significant (regression VII).

Hypothesis H3B is also rejected. There is no well‐measured impact of the absence of uncertainty on investment banks’ recommendations (regressions IV, V, VIII and IX). Uncompetitive elections are not related to positive recommendations. Additionally, the interaction variable (no‐competition*non‐credible policies) is not statistically significant.

Finally variables and are used to test H4 (regression XII). The impact of electoral processes since 2006 on recommendations is not significant. By contrast,

itelection 06 itelectionb 06

13 The exception is the 3‐month EMBI Global return. For the regressions VIII, IX, X and XI this variable is

not statistically significant.

© OECD 2008 33


DEV/DOC(2008)8

before 2006, the impact is statistically significant and investment banks downgraded Latin American countries considerably during electoral episodes. On average, around elections prior to 2006, investment banks downgraded Latin American countries well superior with respect to 2006‐2007. As expected, we obtain that 6β < 7β , in absolute values. As noted in previous section, though, caution is called for in the interpretation of these results, given that the length of the two sub‐samples differs. Indeed, the smaller number of observations for the latter period (only two years long) may itself explain why the effect of the 2006 electoral cycle is not significant.

34 © OECD 2008


DEV/DOC(2008)8

VI. CONCLUSIONS

This paper has analysed the impact of Latin American presidential elections on investment banks’ recommendations, studying market analysts’ reactions to recent electoral cycles in Latin American countries.

In order to determine the implications of the political cycle on market behaviour, a database was constructed, covering all recommendations by major global investment banks present in emerging bond markets from 1997 to 2008. The 13 brokers covered in the database are the dominant players in emerging bond markets as underwriters and market makers.

The most important findings are as follows. First, the political cycle is a determining variable in explaining changes in investment banks’ recommendations. Moreover, the relationship is particularly strong prior to presidential elections: investment banks’ perceptions deteriorate considerably just before presidential elections occur. Secondly, investment banks’ outlooks depend on the signals that candidates send concerning the credibility of their economic policy platforms. In particular, if investment banks perceive that candidates are not committed to defend sustainable macroeconomic policies, they downgrade sovereign debt. By contrast, the absence of uncertainty surrounding the re‐election of incumbent candidates does not seem to have an impact on banks’ recommendations. Finally, by comparing the 2006 electoral year with earlier presidential elections, results suggest that the impact of political cycles has declined in Latin American democracies. However, political risk remains an important determinant today, with populist candidates still abounding in Latin American democracies.

This paper suggests avenues for further research. It would be interesting to test the sensitivity of portfolio flows, both debt and equity, to elections in emerging democracies. The results should be in line with those presented here, in light of earlier research on the linkages between bond analystsʹ recommendations and emerging markets portfolio flows (Nieto Parra and Santiso, 2007), but this hypothesis remains to be tested.

It would also be interesting to explore the reverse relation. In this paper, we tested the impact of political events like elections on financial emerging markets through bond recommendations from major investment banks. Politics impacts financial markets and, as shown, this is particularly true for emerging markets. That said, do financial markets anticipations and reactions also affect political outcomes? Earlier research in this area (Santiso, 2006a; Mosley, 2003; Martínez and Santiso, 2003) suggests that the answer may be yes. Indeed, it may also be that financial markets, because of their aversion to uncertainty and unorthodox economic policies, tend to restrict the political options available to decision makers in emerging democracies.

© OECD 2008 35


DEV/DOC(2008)8

Actors in financial markets can constrain economic policy choices but they can also act as a blessing in disguise, limiting the scope of unbounded political rationality. They limit the menu of options (Biglaiser and DeRouen, 2007) but in so doing might also promote greater pragmatism and gradualism in the policy making, avoiding the ʺpolitical economy of the impossibleʺ characteristic of the macroeconomic populism favoured by so many governments in Latin America during the 1980s (Santiso, 2006b).

Prior to election day, for example, financial markets can help inhibit the proliferation of promises that cannot be kept (Chang, 2006; Maxfield, 2000; Haggard, Lee and Maxfield, 1993; Maxfield, 1990). After election day, they can furthermore channel more pragmatic and gradualist approaches, avoiding the search for shortcuts and unsustainable policies.

In conclusion, the understanding of financial market behaviour requires a political economy approach. There are complex interactions between politics and finance, between individuals and institutions, and among macroeconomic and financial variables. As such, the name of the game in emerging markets is confidence ‐‐ trust and mistrust. For that reason, commitment to credible economic policies by political parties and candidates is crucial to actors in financial markets. In return, not only are financial markets sensitive to electoral processes and politicians but perhaps also to actors in financial markets themselves, an issue that invites further research and analysis.

36 © OECD 2008


DEV/DOC(2008)8

ANNEX 1

Description of the Investment Banks’ Publications Institution Name of the Publication Frequency Start Date

ABN AMRO Emerging Markets Fortnightly Bi-weekly Jan-04

Barclays Capital LatAm Drivers Fortnightly Bi-weekly Feb-04

Bear Stearns Global Emerging Markets Monthly Monthly Oct-02

Citigroup (Citi-Salomon Brothers) Economics/Strategy Monthly Jul-97

Credit Suisse (CSFB) Debt Trading Monthly Monthly May-01

Deutsche Bank Emerging Markets Monthly Monthly Sep-01 to Dec-05

Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein EM Strategist Monthly Jan-04

Goldman Sachs Global Interest Rate Strategy Bi-weekly Aug-01 to Aug-03

JP Morgan Emerging Markets Outlook and Strategy Monthly Jan-01

Lehman Brothers Emerging Markets Compass Monthly Sep-04

Merrill Lynch Emerging Markets Debt Monthly Monthly Feb-03

Morgan Stanley EMD Perspectives Quarterly Quarterly 1Q-00

UBS Emerging Markets Debt Strategy Perspectives Monthly Feb-02 to Apr-04

Source: The authors based on investment banks' publications, 2008

© OECD 2008 37


DEV/DOC(2008)8

ANNEX 2

Investment banks’ recommendations during Presidential Elections

Argentina: recommendations(1:overweight, 0:neutral, -1:underweight)

-1,00

-0,50

0,00

0,50

1,00

Jul-97 Jul-98 Jul-99 Jul-00 Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Jul-04 Jul-05 Jul-06

Presidential election date

Brazil: recommendations(1:overweight, 0:neutral, -1:underweight)

-1,00

-0,50

0,00

0,50

1,00



Chile: recommendations(1:overweight, 0:neutral, -1:underweight)

-1,00

-0,50

0,00

0,50

1,00



Colombia: recommendations(1:overweight, 0:neutral, -1:underweight)

-1,00

-0,50

0,00

0,50

1,00



Ecuador: recommendations(1:overweight, 0:neutral, -1:underweight)

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0



Mexico: recommendations(1:overweight, 0:neutral, -1:underweight)

-1,000

-0,500

0,000

0,500

1,000



38 © OECD 2008


DEV/DOC(2008)8

Peru: recommendations(1:overweight, 0:neutral, -1:underweight)

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0



Uruguay: recommendations(1:overweight, 0:neutral, -1:underweight)

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0



Venezuela: recommendations(1:overweight, 0:neutral, -1:underweight)

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0



Source: The authors based on investments banksʹ publications, http://www.electionguide.org and http://www.observatorioelectoral.org/.

© OECD 2008 39




DEV/DOC(2008)8

ANNEX 3

Investment banks’ recommendations around elections (Panel A: lhs. and Panel B: rhs.)

40 © OECD 2008

SAMPLE PERIOD

OLS FE

9 -3.48966e-01* -3.69298e-01**[1.92] [2.10]

8 -0.42425** -0.43740**[2.24] [2.39]

7 -1.99694e-01 -2.09948e-01[1.06] [1.15]

6 -0.30002* -0.29821*[1.65] [1.69]

5 -0.32791* -0.33986**[1.87] [2.00]

4 -0.28175* -0.30172*[1.66] [1.84]

3 -0.44693*** -0.46690***[2.64] [2.85]

2 -0.46006*** -0.47397***[2.63] [2.80]

1 -0.47196*** -0.49326***[2.79] [3.01]

0 -0.35292** -0.35589**[2.02] [2.10]

-1 -0.27196 -0.29326*[1.61] [1.79]

-2 -0.24577 -0.24875[1.40] [1.47]

-3 -0.26563 -0.28597[1.46] [1.62]

-4 -0.07261 -0.07465[0.41] [0.44]

-5 0.23278 0.20287[1.33] [1.19]

-6 0.09804 0.07662[0.58] [0.47]

-7 0.14990 0.12940[0.88] [0.79]

-8 0.14682 0.12685[0.87] [0.77]

-9 0.12450 0.10453[0.74] [0.64]

9 0.23637 0.20981[1.03] [0.94]

8 0.17387 0.14731[0.75] [0.66]

7 0.17387 0.14731[0.75] [0.66]

6 0.23637 0.20981[1.03] [0.94]

5 -0.07613 -0.10269[0.33] [0.46]

4 0.23637 0.20981[1.03] [0.94]

3 -0.26363 -0.29019[1.14] [1.30]

2 -0.38863* -0.41519*[1.69] [1.86]

1 -0.13863 -0.16519[0.60] [0.74]

0 0.11137 0.08481[0.48] [0.38]

-1 -0.13863 -0.16519[0.60] [0.74]

-2 -0.32613 -0.35269[1.41] [1.58]

-3 0.11137 0.08481[0.48] [0.38]

-4 0.07566 0.01959[0.31] [0.08]

-5 -0.06720 -0.12326[0.27] [0.52]

-6 -0.28149 -0.33755[1.14] [1.42]

-7 -0.21006 -0.26612[0.85] [1.12]

-8 -0.13863 -0.19469[0.56] [0.82]

-9 -0.13863 -0.22228[0.52] [0.86]

Constant 0.13863*** 0.14755***[5.46] [5.98]

Observations 1051 1051R-squared 0.06 0.07

Number of Countries 9

Absolute value of t statistics in brackets* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%

1998 - 2007

BEF

OR

E

20

06SI

NC

E

200

6

PERIOD

OLS FE

9 -1.33699e-01 -1.56099e-01[0.93] [1.12]

8 -0.18827 -0.20584[1.27] [1.44]

7 -4.62682e-02 -6.21734e-02[0.31] [0.43]

6 -0.09084 -0.09955[0.63] [0.71]

5 -0.23232 -0.24880*[1.65] [1.82]

4 -0.09860 -0.12031[0.71] [0.90]

3 -0.38078*** -0.40249***[2.76] [3.01]

2 -0.43552*** -0.45410***[3.08] [3.32]

1 -0.35746*** -0.38053***[2.59] [2.84]

0 -0.18552 -0.19711[1.31] [1.44]

-1 -0.22702 -0.25009*[1.64] [1.87]

-2 -0.27643* -0.28802**[1.96] [2.10]

-3 -0.13370 -0.15610[0.93] [1.12]

-4 -0.03586 -0.05554[0.25] [0.40]

-5 0.12404 0.08604[0.86] [0.61]

-6 -0.03366 -0.06538[0.24] [0.48]

-7 0.02958 -0.00178[0.21] [0.01]

-8 0.04623 0.01511[0.33] [0.11]

-9 0.03633 0.00521[0.26] [0.04]

Constant 0.14007*** 0.14873***[5.49] [5.99]

Observations 1051 1051R-squared 0.03 0.04Number of Countries 9

Absolute value of t statistics in brackets* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%

1998 - 2007


DEV/DOC(2008)8

ANNEX 4

In order to define non credible economic policies of candidates during elections, we observe the commitment of candidates to follow credible economic policies during presidential campaigns. More precisely, we determine whether the signal that candidates are sending is credible.

To that end, we analyse the interaction between political parties and candidates with international market participants. One piece of this game is the information transmitted to international financial actors concerning future economic policies.

We study this information through the press. In particular, by using The Economist14 as source of information we determine which candidates are announcing non‐credible economic policies. For that purpose, we take into account all articles related to our sample countries three months before the presidential election (with the election month included).

We define that candidates are announcing non‐credible economic policies if, in any article related to the country, we find that there is a fear that a candidate realises one of the following policies in the event to be president:

1. Expansionary fiscal policy (reduction of taxes or increase of public expenditures) could be damage the sustainability of the debt.

2. Announcement of non‐future payment or renegotiation of the debt.

3. There is an inflation concern (instability of prices) due to an expansionary monetary policy (low interest rates or devaluation of the currency).

4. In cases in which independent central bank and/or inflation targeting framework exist, announcements about the abandon of these policies.

5. Economic programs similar to those of previous or present “populist” presidents following expansionary economic policies.

6. Support and agreement with populist presidents of the region.

Consequently, countries take the value of 1 in the dummy variable when one of the above mentioned events are cited in the periodical during and three months before the election date.

© OECD 2008 41

14 More precisely, we use The Economist.com archive as source of information. It contains web‐only

content as well as all articles from The Economist newspaper published since June 1997.


DEV/DOC(2008)8

The The Economist articles employed in this research to define this dummy variable for the case of the presidential elections in Brazil in 1998, 2002 and 2006 are:

Brazil: “The battle royal for Brazil´s real” Sep 10th 1998 “Last stand?” Sep 17th 1998 “Why the left isn’t winning” Sep 17th 1998 “Will Brazil be next?” Sep 17th 1998 “Can Cardoso use financial chaos to reform Brazil?” Sep 24th 1998 “After Cardoso´s big day” Oct 8th 1998 “Panic comes calling” Aug 1st 2002 | SAO PAULO “Stopping the rot in Brazil” Aug 1st 2002 “South Americaʹs dominoes” Aug 6th 2002 “Que sera, Serra” Aug 15th 2002 | SAO PAULO “A matter of fait” Aug 15th 2002 | SAO PAULO “On the attack” Aug 29th 2002 | SAO PAULO “Lula scents victory at last” Sep 19th 2002 | SAO PAULO “Race against time” Sep 26th 2002 | SAO PAULO “The meaning of Lula” Oct 3rd 2002 ”Running out of time” Oct 3rd 2002 “Now for round two” Oct 7th 2002 “Talking victory” Oct 24th 2002 | SAO PAULO “What will Lula do?” Oct 28th 2002 “Contentment and complacency” Aug 31st 2006 | SÃO PAULO “Who leads Latin America?” Sep 28th 2006 “Love Lula if youʹre poor, worry if youʹre not” Sep 28th 2006 | CONTAGEM “A run‐off in Brazil” Oct 2nd 2006 | SÃO PAULO “When victory spells defeat” Oct 5th 2006 | SÃO PAULO “Wanted: a champion for privatization” Oct 26th 2006 “Lula the political prizefighter” Oct 26th 2006 | SÃO PAULO “Lulaʹs comfortable win” Oct 30th 2006 | SÃO PAULO

The articles used for the other elections in Latin American countries are available under request.

42 © OECD 2008


DEV/DOC(2008)8

ANNEX 5

Investment banks’ recommendations and elections

© OECD 2008 43

Control Hypothesis1 Hypothesis1 Hypoth. 2&3 Hypoth. 2&3 Hypoth. 2&3I II III IV V VI

US Ind. Production 1.34597e-01 1.10754e+00 1.11327e+00 7.49468e-01 7.03334e-01 6.69308e-01[0.08] [0.63] [0.63] [0.43] [0.40] [0.38]

EMBI Global Spread 0.00019** 0.00021** 0.00020** 0.00024*** 0.00024*** 0.00024***[2.21] [2.40] [2.37] [2.75] [2.79] [2.81]

Local interest rate -6.37297e-02 -7.04611e-02 -6.44638e-02 -2.40163e-03 8.14879e-03 1.12569e-02[0.13] [0.15] [0.13] [0.00] [0.02] [0.02]

Exchange rate depreciation 0.39693 0.29782 0.29253 0.23731 0.22667 0.24295[1.61] [1.20] [1.18] [0.95] [0.90] [0.97]

Diff. EMBI Global Spread -0.00012 -0.00013 -0.00012 -0.00015 -0.00014 -0.00015[0.72] [0.78] [0.73] [0.87] [0.85] [0.89]

Equity Return -0.30215 -0.26810 -0.26683 -0.23266 -0.23137 -0.26119[1.63] [1.44] [1.43] [1.24] [1.23] [1.39]

Inflation rate -0.90148 -0.49544 -0.45391 -0.54735 -0.49871 -0.54232[1.13] [0.61] [0.56] [0.68] [0.61] [0.67]

Industrial Production growth 0.94500* 0.96620* 0.97363* 1.04039* 1.06511** 1.03093*[1.80] [1.83] [1.84] [1.94] [1.98] [1.93]

Diff. local interest rate -0.24332 -0.27491 -0.26903 -0.30806 -0.31345 -0.32091[0.12] [0.14] [0.14] [0.17] [0.18] [0.17]

Diff. US High Yield 0.00101 0.00102 0.00100 0.00099 0.00098 0.00098[1.56] [1.57] [1.53] [1.52] [1.50] [1.51]

Diff. VIX Index 0.01373 0.01519 0.01510 0.01611 0.01627 0.01660[1.24] [1.36] [1.35] [1.44] [1.46] [1.49]

Interest pbonds / X -0.40985 0.16079 0.10982 0.50974 0.59511 0.42357[0.16] [0.06] [0.04] [0.20] [0.23] [0.17]

pbonds / X -1.26024*** -1.28496*** -1.28270*** -1.35734*** -1.37651*** -1.35446***[5.51] [5.60] [5.59] [5.83] [5.85] [5.85]

Res/Imp 6.93052*** 6.94445*** 6.95061*** 8.56901*** 8.63851*** 8.44001***[2.84] [2.83] [2.83] [3.45] [3.47] [3.40]

EMBIGWeight 0.79302 1.09867 1.08707 1.43609 1.46564 1.44943[0.77] [1.07] [1.06] [1.38] [1.41] [1.40]

EMBI Global Return Index (1 month) -0.34089 -0.53678 -0.53201 -0.41260 -0.39752 -0.36475[0.30] [0.47] [0.46] [0.36] [0.35] [0.32]

EMBI Global Return Index (3 months) 1.54282* 1.67271* 1.53233* 1.90064** 1.92352** 1.96857**[1.77] [1.91] [1.73] [2.16] [2.18] [2.23]

EMBI Global Return Index (12 months) 2.74702*** 2.54094*** 2.53597*** 2.41072*** 2.39303*** 2.45539***[5.82] [5.37] [5.36] [5.04] [4.99] [5.14]

Diff. sovereign bond ratings 0.15317** 0.15269** 0.15559** 0.13893* 0.13889* 0.13908*[2.02] [2.00] [2.04] [1.83] [1.83] [1.83]

Trade volume / GDP 1.80963*** 1.53238*** 1.54843*** 1.62736*** 1.62869*** 1.64354***[4.27] [3.56] [3.59] [3.81] [3.81] [3.84]

St. deviation EMBI return (6 months) 10.34349 21.10073 18.87436 23.44892 26.18886 21.09258[0.50] [1.01] [0.90] [1.09] [1.19] [1.00]


bid-ask spread 0.43840 0.45250 0.45454 0.49331 0.48075 0.53253[1.27] [1.31] [1.31] [1.42] [1.38] [1.53]

Around elections [ -3,+3 ] -0.52043***[3.89]

Before elections [ -3,-1 ] -0.67426***[3.48]

During and After elections [ 0,+3 ] -0.40699**[2.41]

non-credible policies before elections (bf)

Incumbent leader (inc) 0.27737[1.01]

interaction variable (inc*non-credible bf)

no-competition (nocp) -0.06450 0.01575[0.30] [0.06]

interaction variable (nocp*non-credible bf)

non-credible policies (around elections) -0.76619*** -0.71366*** -0.80126***[4.22] [3.50] [4.57]

interaction variable (inc*non-credible ar)

interaction variable (nocp*non-credible ar) -0.25599[0.57]

elections 2006

elections before 2006

Observations 657 657 657 657 657 657Pseudo R2 0.1318 0.1406 0.1413 0.1437 0.1439 0.1442

Absolute value of z statistics in brackets* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%


DEV/DOC(2008)8

Hypoth. 2&3 Hypoth. 2&3 Hypoth. 2&3 Hypoth. 2&3 Hypoth. 2&3 Hypoth. 4VII VIII IX X XI XII

US Ind. Production 6.61260e-01 4.54019e-01 3.89611e-01 4.05406e-01 4.16865e-01 1.07407e+00[0.38] [0.26] [0.22] [0.23] [0.24] [0.61]

EMBI Global Spread 0.00024*** 0.00021** 0.00023*** 0.00022** 0.00022** 0.00022**[2.80] [2.49] [2.62] [2.49] [2.50] [2.54]

Local interest rate 1.13524e-02 -8.66796e-03 1.68525e-02 6.82763e-03 7.94297e-03 -6.84468e-02[0.02] [0.02] [0.04] [0.01] [0.02] [0.14]

Exchange rate depreciation 0.24202 0.30274 0.26472 0.32099 0.32175 0.27766[0.97] [1.22] [1.06] [1.29] [1.30] [1.12]

Diff. EMBI Global Spread -0.00015 -0.00012 -0.00011 -0.00012 -0.00012 -0.00014[0.88] [0.70] [0.68] [0.70] [0.71] [0.80]

Equity Return -0.26075 -0.26042 -0.25289 -0.29955 -0.30007 -0.31379*[1.38] [1.39] [1.35] [1.60] [1.60] [1.65]

Inflation rate -0.53353 -0.65168 -0.51383 -0.66313 -0.67527 -0.38448[0.66] [0.81] [0.63] [0.82] [0.83] [0.47]

Industrial Production growth 1.03160* 1.04073* 1.09947** 1.02289* 1.02107* 0.96233*[1.93] [1.95] [2.04] [1.92] [1.92] [1.82]

Diff. local interest rate -0.32075 -0.26359 -0.28416 -0.27259 -0.27311 -0.28430[0.17] [0.15] [0.17] [0.14] [0.15] [0.15]

Diff. US High Yield 0.00098 0.00098 0.00094 0.00097 0.00096 0.00108*[1.51] [1.49] [1.44] [1.49] [1.48] [1.65]

Diff. VIX Index 0.01658 0.01443 0.01511 0.01454 0.01464 0.01496[1.48] [1.30] [1.36] [1.30] [1.31] [1.34]

Interest pbonds / X 0.41224 0.37560 0.60593 -0.00221 0.02529 0.44862[0.16] [0.15] [0.24] [0.00] [0.01] [0.18]

pbonds / X -1.35403*** -1.33907*** -1.38882*** -1.31625*** -1.31760*** -1.29285***[5.85] [5.77] [5.91] [5.71] [5.71] [5.63]

Res/Imp 8.46986*** 7.93187*** 8.21154*** 7.73451*** 7.67167*** 6.85460***[3.38] [3.21] [3.31] [3.13] [3.10] [2.79]

EMBIGWeight 1.45637 1.05138 1.18895 1.06720 1.05382 1.23572[1.40] [1.02] [1.15] [1.04] [1.02] [1.20]

EMBI Global Return Index (1 month) -0.36122 -0.29714 -0.27937 -0.22988 -0.22879 -0.62812[0.31] [0.26] [0.24] [0.20] [0.20] [0.55]

EMBI Global Return Index (3 months) 1.97168** 1.23056 1.40189 1.25687 1.23007 1.70379*[2.23] [1.40] [1.59] [1.43] [1.40] [1.94]

EMBI Global Return Index (12 months) 2.45380*** 2.53993*** 2.47298*** 2.62412*** 2.62616*** 2.63589***[5.13] [5.33] [5.17] [5.53] [5.53] [5.48]

Diff. sovereign bond ratings 0.13909* 0.14720* 0.14587* 0.14812* 0.14810* 0.15805**[1.83] [1.94] [1.92] [1.95] [1.95] [2.07]

Trade volume / GDP 1.64226*** 1.73849*** 1.72235*** 1.76898*** 1.77196*** 1.45723***[3.84] [4.08] [4.04] [4.15] [4.16] [3.36]



bid-ask spread 0.53138 0.42225 0.40340 0.46994 0.47413 0.47583[1.53] [1.22] [1.16] [1.35] [1.36] [1.37]

Around elections [ -3,+3 ]

Before elections [ -3,-1 ]

During and After elections [ 0,+3 ]

non-credible policies before elections (bf) -0.84857*** -0.70417** -0.92538*** -0.95989***[3.08] [2.43] [3.39] [3.23]

Incumbent leader (inc) 0.29368 0.23661 0.20168[0.91] [0.86] [0.68]

interaction variable (inc*non-credible bf) 0.23084[0.30]

no-competition (nocp) -0.19368 0.02363[0.92] [0.09]

interaction variable (nocp*non-credible bf) -0.62304[1.46]

non-credible policies (around elections) -0.79642***[4.37]

interaction variable (inc*non-credible ar) -0.06106[0.10]

interaction variable (nocp*non-credible ar)

elections 2006 -0.31347[1.49]

elections before 2006 -0.65573***[3.83]

Observations 657 657 657 657 657 657Pseudo R2 0.1442 0.1390 0.1402 0.1389 0.1390 0.1416

Absolute value of z statistics in brackets* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%

44 © OECD 2008


DEV/DOC(2008)8

REFERENCES

ALESINA, A, R. HAUSMANN, R. HOMMES and E. STEIN (1999), ʺFiscal Institutions and Budget Deficits in Latin America”, Journal of Development Economics, 59, pp. 233‐255.

ALESINA, A. (1987), “Macroeconomic policy in a two‐party system as a repeated game”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102, pp. 651–678.

ALESINA, A., N. ROUBINI, and G. COHEN, (1997), Political Cycles and the Macroeconomy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

AMES, B. (1987), Political Survival: Politicians and Public Policy in Latin America, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

ARCHER, C. C., G. BIGLAISER, and K. DE ROUEN JR., (2007), “Sovereign Bonds and the “Democratic Advantage”: Does Regime Type Affect Credit Rating Agency Ratings in the Developing World?”, International Organization, Vol. 61 (2), pp. 341–365.

BERNHARD, W, and D. LEBLANG, (2006a), Democratic processes and financial markets, Cambridge University Press, New York.

BERNHARD, W, and D. LEBLANG, (2006b), Democratic Process and Financial Markets: Pricing Politics, Cambridge University Press, New York.

BERNHARD, W, and D. LEBLANG, (2007), “Expectations and Elections”, Working Paper. Available at: http://socsci.colorado.edu/~leblang/Site/Home_files/Bernhard%26LeblangAPSA2007.pdf

BIGLAISER, G., and K. DE ROUEN (2007), “Sovereign Bond Ratings and Neoliberalism in Latin America”, International Studies Quarterly, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp. 121‐138, March.

BLÁZQUEZ, J. and J. SANTISO (2004), “Is Mexico an ex emerging market?”, Journal of Latin American Studies, No. 36, pp. 297‐318.

BLOCK, S. (2002), “Political business cycles, democratization, and economic reform: the case of Africa”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 67 (1), pp. 205–228, February.

BLOCK, S. (2003), “Political conditions and currency crises in emerging markets”, Emerging Markets Review, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp. 287‐309, September.

BLOCK, S., B. SCHRAGE, and P. VALLER (2003), “Democracy’s spread: elections and sovereign debt in developing countries”, The William Davidson Institute, University of Michigan, Working Paper, 575, May.

BLOCK, S. and P. VAALER, (2004), “The Price of Democracy: Sovereign Risk Ratings, Bond Spreads and Political Business Cycles in Developing Countriesʺ,. Journal of International Money and Finance, Vol. 23 (6), pp. 917‐946, October.

BLOMBERG, B., J. FRIEDEN and E. STEIN (2005), “Sustaining Fixed Rates: The Political Economy of Currency Pegs in Latin America”, Journal of Applied Economics, Vol.8, pp. 203‐225, November.

© OECD 2008 45

http://www.business.uiuc.edu/facultyprofile/Journals.aspx?jid=300


DEV/DOC(2008)8

BONOMO, M. and C. TERRA (2005), “Elections and exchange rate policy cycles”, Economics & Politics, Vol. 17 (2) , pp. 151–176, July.

BRENDER, A. and A. DRAZEN (2005), “Political budget cycles in new versus established democracies”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Volume 52, Issue 7, pp. 1271‐1295, October.

BRENDER, A. and A. DRAZEN (2008), “How Do Budget Deficits and Economic Growth Affect Reelection Prospects? – Evidence from a Large Cross‐Section of Countries”, Department of Economics, University of Maryland (unpublished), February. See http://www.econ.umd.edu/~drazen/Working_Papers/Working_Papers.html

BUSSIÈRE, M. and C. MULDER (2000), ‘Political instability and economic vulnerability’, International Journal of Finance and Economics, 5, pp. 309‐‐30.

CAMPELLO, D. (2007), “Do markets vote? A systematic analysis of portfolio investors’ response to national elections”, Department of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles (unpublished), September.

CHANG, M. (2002), “Reading the news: elections, institutions and market speculation in Mexico and Korea”, Colgate University Department of Political Science, paper presented at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.

CHANG, R. (2007), “Financial crises and political crises”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Volume 54, Issue 8, pp. 2409‐2420, November.

CHANG, R., (2006), ʺElectoral Uncertainty and the Volatility of International Capital Flows”, Working Paper, Rutgers University. See http://econweb.rutgers.edu/rchang/brazil706.pdf, July

CHO, H. J. (2007), ʺDemocracy and Sovereign Credit Ratings: Do Democratic Institutions Help Leftist Governments Restore Investor Confidence?ʺ, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, Apr 12, 2007 (unpublished).

CHO, H.J. (2008), ʺPartisan Politics, Credibility, and Government Bond Marketsʺ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the The Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, 2008 (unpublished).

CHWIEROTH, J. (2007), “Neoliberal economists and capital account liberalization in emerging markets”, International Orgnization, 61, pp. 443‐463. See also http://personal.lse.ac.uk/chwierot/IO61(2).pdf

DRAZEN A. and M. ESLAVA (2005), “Electoral Manipulation Via Expenditure Composition: Theory and Evidence”, NBER Working paper No. 11085, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

EICHENGREEN, B., A. ROSE, and C. WYPLOSZ, (1995), ʺExchange Market Mayhem: The Antecedents and Aftermath of Speculative Attacksʺ, Economic Policy, 21, pp. 249‐312.

ESLAVA, M. (2006), “The Political Economy of Fiscal Policy: Survey”, IADB Working Papers 583

FATAS, A. and I. MIHOV (2006), “Policy volatility, institutions, and economic growth”, INSEAD, Working Paper (unpublished). See also http://faculty.insead.edu/fatas/

FRIEDEN, J., D. LEBLANG and N. VALEV (2008), “The political economy of exchange rate regimes in transition economies”, Harvard University, April, mimeo unpublished.

FRIEDEN, J., P. GHEZZI and E. STEIN (2001), ʺPolitics and Exchange Rates: A Cross‐Country Approach.ʺ In Frieden, J. and E. Stein, eds., The Currency Game: Exchange‐Rate Politics in Latin America, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 20‐63.

46 © OECD 2008

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03043932

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%235937%232005%23999479992%23610772%23FLA%23&_cdi=5937&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a771decbf934df91856b469f365aa238

http://www.econ.umd.edu/%7Edrazen/Working_Papers/DRAFT_Reelection%20Prospects_Submit.pdf

http://www.econ.umd.edu/%7Edrazen/Working_Papers/DRAFT_Reelection%20Prospects_Submit.pdf


DEV/DOC(2008)8

GONZÁLEZ, M.A. (2002), “Do Changes in Democracy Affect the Political Budget Cycle? Evidence from Mexico”, Review of Development Economics, Vol. 6, No. 2, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

GOUREVITCH, P., P. PINTO, and S. WEYMOUTH (2008), ʺThe Politics of Stock Market Developmentʺ, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISAʹs 49th Annual Convention, San Francisco, CA (unpublished).

HAGGARD, S., C. LEE and S. MAXFIELD (1993), The politics of finance in developing countries, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

HARTELIUS, K.J., K. KASHIWASE and L.E.KODRES (2008), “Emerging markets spread compression: is it real or is it liquidity?”, IMF Working Paper, 10, January.

HAYS, J., J. FREEMAN and H. NESSETH (2003), ʺDemocratization and Globalization in Emerging Market Countries: An Econometric Studyʺ, International Studies Quarterly, Volume 47, Number 2, pp. 203‐228, June.

HIBBS, D., (1977), “Political parties and macroeconomic policy”, American Political Science Review, 71, pp. 467–487.

IZQUIERDO, A. and E. TALVI (2008), All that Glitters May Not Be Gold. Assessing Latin Americaʹs Recent Macroeconomic Performance, Inter‐American Development Bank, Washington, DC, April. See also http://www.iadb.org/res/publications/pubfiles/All‐glitters.pdf

JENSEN, N. and S. SCHMITH (2005), “Market Responses to Politics: The rise of Lula and the decline of Brazilian stock market”, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 38, No. 10, pp. 1245‐1270.

KEEFER, P. and D. STASAVAGE (2002), “Checks and balances, private information and the credibility of monetary commitments”, International organization, 56, pp.751‐774, October.

KEEFER, P. and D. STASAVAGE (2003), “The limits of delegation: Veto players, central bank independence, and credibility of monetary policy”, American Political Science Review, 97 (3), pp. 407‐423.

KHEMANI, S. (2004), ʺPolitical cycles in a developing economy: effect of elections in the Indian States,ʺ Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 73(1), pp. 125‐154, February

LEBLANG, D. (2002), ʺThe Political Economy of Speculative Attacks in the Developing Worldʺ, International Studies Quarterly, 46 (1), pp. 69‐91.

LEBLANG, D., and W. BERNHARD (2006), “Parliamentary Politics and Foreign Exchange Markets: The World According to GARCH”, International Studies Quarterly, 50 (1), pp. 69–92.

LEBLANG, D., and S. SATYANATH, (2006), “Institutions, Expectations, and Currency Crises”, International Organization, 60, Winter, pp. 245–262.

LEBLANG, D., and S. SATYANATH (2008), “Politically generated uncertainty and currency crises: Theory, tests, and forecasts”, Journal of International Money and Finance, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp. 480‐497, April.

LIN, T.M. and B. ROBERTS (2001), ʺParliamentary Politics and Exchange Marketsʺ, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.

MACINTYRE, A. (2001), ʺInstitutions and Investors: The Politics of the Economic Crisis in Southeast Asiaʺ, International Organization, 55 (1), pp. 81‐122.

MARTINEZ, J., and J. SANTISO (2003), “Financial Markets and Politics: The Confidence Game in Latin American Emerging Economies”, International Political Science Review, Vol. 24, No.3, pp. 363‐395.

© OECD 2008 47

http://www.allacademic.com/one/prol/prol01/index.php?cmd=Download+Document&key=unpublished_manuscript&file_index=1&pop_up=true&no_click_key=true&attachment_style=attachment&PHPSESSID=a0dfde316b5ee3d344ef890d728f20b0

http://www.bokfynd.nu/forfattare/Stephan%20Haggard.html

http://www.bokfynd.nu/forfattare/Stephan%20Haggard.html

http://www.bokfynd.nu/forfattare/%20Chung%20H.%20Lee.html



http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/isqu;jsessionid=kdkw0egtowks.alexandra

http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/deveco/v73y2004i1p125-154.html

http://ideas.repec.org/s/eee/deveco.html


DEV/DOC(2008)8

MAXFIELD, S. (1990), Governing Capital: International Finance and Mexican Politics, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

MAXFIELD, S. (2000), “Capital Mobility and Democratic Stability”, Journal of Democracy, Volume 11, Number 4, pp. 95‐106, October.

MOSER, C. (2007), “The impact of political risk on sovereign spreads: evidence from Latin America”, Department of Economics, University of Mainz (unpublished).

MOSER, C. and A. DREHER (2007), “Do Markets Care About Central Bank Governor Changes? Evidence from Emerging Markets”, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, 177, October. See http://www.axel‐dreher.de/#Discussion

MOSLEY, L. (2003), Global capital and national governments, Cambridge University Press, New York.

MUKHERJEE, B. and D. LEBLANG (2007), “Partisan politics, interest rates and the stock market: Evidence from American and British returns in the twentieth century”, Economics & Politics, Vol. 19 (2), pp. 135–167.

NIETO PARRA, S. and J. SANTISO (2007), “The Usual Suspects: A Primer on Investment banks´ recommendations and Emerging Markets”, OECD Development Centre Working Paper, No. 258, January.

NORDHAUS, W. (1975), “The political business cycle”, Review of Economic Studies 42. pp. 169‐190.

PANTZALIS, C., D.A. STANGELAND and H. TURTLE (2000), ʺPolitical Elections and the Resolution of Uncertainty: The International Evidence.ʺ Journal of Banking and Finance, 24(10), pp. 1575‐1 604.

PERSSON, T. and G. TIBELLINI (1994), Monetary and Fiscal Policy. Volume 1: Credibilility, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

PRZEWORSKI, A (1991), Democracy and the Market; Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America, New York: Cambridge University Press

REINHART, C. (2002), “Default, Currency Crises, and Sovereign Credit Ratings”, NBER Working Paper, No. 8738, Cambridge, MA: NBER, January

REISEN, H. (2002), “Ratings Since the Asian Crisis”, Discussion Paper, No. 2002/2, WIDER United Nations University, January.

REMMER, K. (1993), “The political economy of elections in Latin America”, American Political Science Review, 87 (2), pp. 393–407.

RODRIGUEZ, J. and J. SANTISO (2008), “Banking on democracy: The political economy of international private bank lending in emerging markets”, International Political Science Review, Vol. 29 (2), pp. 213‐244, April.

ROGOFF, K. (1990), “Equilibrium political budget cycles”, American Economic Review, 80, pp. 21–36.

SAIEGH, S. (2005), “Do countries have a democratic advantage? Political institutions, Multilateral agencies and sovereign borrowing”, Comparative Political Studies, Volume 38, No. 4, pp. 366‐387, May.

SANTISO, J. (1999), “Wall Street and the Mexican Crisis: A temporal analysis of emerging markets”, International Political Science Review, Vol. 20, No.1, pp. 49‐73, January.

SANTISO, J. (2003), The Political Economy of Emerging Markets: Actors, Institutions and Financial Crises in Latin America, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

48 © OECD 2008


DEV/DOC(2008)8

SANTISO, J. (2006a), “Wall Street and emerging democracies: financial markets and the Brazilian presidential elections”, in in Whitehead, L. and L. Sola, eds., State crafting monetary authority. Democracy and financial order in Brazil, Oxford, Oxford Centre for Brazilian Studies, pp. 269‐323.

SANTISO, J. (2006b), The political economy of the possible: Beyond good revolutionaries and free marketeers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

SCHUKNECHT, L. (1996), “Political business cycles and fiscal policies in developing countries”, Kyklos 49 (2), pp. 155–170.

SHI, M. and J. SVENSSON (2006), “Political Budget Cycles: Do They Differ Across Countries and Why?”, Journal of Public Economics, 90 (8‐9), pp. 1367‐1389.

SNOWBERG, E.,J. WOLFERS, and E. ZIZTZEWITZ (2007), “Partisan impacts on the economy: evidence from prediction markets and close elections”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 122, No. 2, pp. 807–829, May.

STEIN, E. and J. M. STREB (2004), “Signaling in political budget cycles. How far are you willing to go?”, Journal of Public Economic Theory, No.7, pp. 229‐252.

STEIN, E., J.M. STREB and P. GHEZZI (2005), “Real exchange rate cycles around elections”, Economics and Politics, Vol. 17, No.3, pp. 297‐330.

VAALER, P. and G. MCNAMARA (2008), “Electoral and market rivalry in developing country sovereign risk assesment”, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota (unpublished), February. See also http://www.business.uiuc.edu/vaaler/

WHITEHEAD, L. (2006), “The political dynamics of financial crisis in emerging market democracies”, in Whitehead, L. and L. Sola, eds., State crafting monetary authority. Democracy and financial order in Brazil, Oxford, Oxford Centre for Brazilian Studies, pp. 13‐36.

© OECD 2008 49


DEV/DOC(2008)8

OTHER TITLES IN THE SERIES/ AUTRES TITRES DANS LA SÉRIE

The former series known as “Technical Papers” and “Webdocs” merged in November 2003 into “Development Centre Working Papers”. In the new series, former Webdocs 1‐17 follow

former Technical Papers 1‐212 as Working Papers 213‐229.

All these documents may be downloaded from: http://www.oecd.org/dev/wp or obtained via e‐mail ([email protected]).

Working Paper No.1, Macroeconomic Adjustment and Income Distribution: A Macro‐Micro Simulation Model, by François Bourguignon, William H. Branson and Jaime de Melo, March 1989. Working Paper No. 2, International Interactions in Food and Agricultural Policies: The Effect of Alternative Policies, by Joachim Zietz and Alberto Valdés, April, 1989. Working Paper No. 3, The Impact of Budget Retrenchment on Income Distribution in Indonesia: A Social Accounting Matrix Application, by Steven Keuning and Erik Thorbecke, June 1989. Working Paper No. 3a, Statistical Annex: The Impact of Budget Retrenchment, June 1989. Document de travail No. 4, Le Rééquilibrage entre le secteur public et le secteur privé : le cas du Mexique, par C.‐A. Michalet, juin 1989. Working Paper No. 5, Rebalancing the Public and Private Sectors: The Case of Malaysia, by R. Leeds, July 1989. Working Paper No. 6, Efficiency, Welfare Effects, and Political Feasibility of Alternative Antipoverty and Adjustment Programs, by Alain de Janvry and Elisabeth Sadoulet, December 1989. Document de travail No. 7, Ajustement et distribution des revenus : application d’un modèle macro‐micro au Maroc, par Christian Morrisson, avec la collaboration de Sylvie Lambert et Akiko Suwa, décembre 1989. Working Paper No. 8, Emerging Maize Biotechnologies and their Potential Impact, by W. Burt Sundquist, December 1989. Document de travail No. 9, Analyse des variables socio‐culturelles et de l’ajustement en Côte d’Ivoire, par W. Weekes‐Vagliani, janvier 1990. Working Paper No. 10, A Financial Computable General Equilibrium Model for the Analysis of Ecuador’s Stabilization Programs, by André Fargeix and Elisabeth Sadoulet, February 1990. Working Paper No. 11, Macroeconomic Aspects, Foreign Flows and Domestic Savings Performance in Developing Countries: A ”State of The Art” Report, by Anand Chandavarkar, February 1990. Working Paper No. 12, Tax Revenue Implications of the Real Exchange Rate: Econometric Evidence from Korea and Mexico, by Viriginia Fierro and Helmut Reisen, February 1990. Working Paper No. 13, Agricultural Growth and Economic Development: The Case of Pakistan, by Naved Hamid and Wouter Tims, April 1990. Working Paper No. 14, Rebalancing the Public and Private Sectors in Developing Countries: The Case of Ghana, by H. Akuoko‐Frimpong, June 1990. Working Paper No. 15, Agriculture and the Economic Cycle: An Economic and Econometric Analysis with Special Reference to Brazil, by Florence Contré and Ian Goldin, June 1990. Working Paper No. 16, Comparative Advantage: Theory and Application to Developing Country Agriculture, by Ian Goldin, June 1990. Working Paper No. 17, Biotechnology and Developing Country Agriculture: Maize in Brazil, by Bernardo Sorj and John Wilkinson, June 1990. Working Paper No. 18, Economic Policies and Sectoral Growth: Argentina 1913‐1984, by Yair Mundlak, Domingo Cavallo, Roberto Domenech, June 1990. Working Paper No. 19, Biotechnology and Developing Country Agriculture: Maize In Mexico, by Jaime A. Matus Gardea, Arturo Puente Gonzalez and Cristina Lopez Peralta, June 1990. Working Paper No. 20, Biotechnology and Developing Country Agriculture: Maize in Thailand, by Suthad Setboonsarng, July 1990. Working Paper No. 21, International Comparisons of Efficiency in Agricultural Production, by Guillermo Flichmann, July 1990. Working Paper No. 22, Unemployment in Developing Countries: New Light on an Old Problem, by David Turnham and Denizhan Eröcal, July 1990.

50 © OECD 2008



DEV/DOC(2008)8

Working Paper No. 23, Optimal Currency Composition of Foreign Debt: the Case of Five Developing Countries, by Pier Giorgio Gawronski, August 1990. Working Paper No. 24, From Globalization to Regionalization: the Mexican Case, by Wilson Peres Núñez, August 1990. Working Paper No. 25, Electronics and Development in Venezuela: A User‐Oriented Strategy and its Policy Implications, by Carlota Perez, October 1990. Working Paper No. 26, The Legal Protection of Software: Implications for Latecomer Strategies in Newly Industrialising Economies (NIEs) and Middle‐Income Economies (MIEs), by Carlos Maria Correa, October 1990. Working Paper No. 27, Specialization, Technical Change and Competitiveness in the Brazilian Electronics Industry, by Claudio R. Frischtak, October 1990. Working Paper No. 28, Internationalization Strategies of Japanese Electronics Companies: Implications for Asian Newly Industrializing Economies (NIEs), by Bundo Yamada, October 1990. Working Paper No. 29, The Status and an Evaluation of the Electronics Industry in Taiwan, by Gee San, October 1990. Working Paper No. 30, The Indian Electronics Industry: Current Status, Perspectives and Policy Options, by Ghayur Alam, October 1990. Working Paper No. 31, Comparative Advantage in Agriculture in Ghana, by James Pickett and E. Shaeeldin, October 1990. Working Paper No. 32, Debt Overhang, Liquidity Constraints and Adjustment Incentives, by Bert Hofman and Helmut Reisen, October 1990. Working Paper No. 34, Biotechnology and Developing Country Agriculture: Maize in Indonesia, by Hidjat Nataatmadja et al., January 1991. Working Paper No. 35, Changing Comparative Advantage in Thai Agriculture, by Ammar Siamwalla, Suthad Setboonsarng and Prasong Werakarnjanapongs, March 1991. Working Paper No. 36, Capital Flows and the External Financing of Turkey’s Imports, by Ziya Önis and Süleyman Özmucur, July 1991. Working Paper No. 37, The External Financing of Indonesia’s Imports, by Glenn P. Jenkins and Henry B.F. Lim, July 1991. Working Paper No. 38, Long‐term Capital Reflow under Macroeconomic Stabilization in Latin America, by Beatriz Armendariz de Aghion, July 1991. Working Paper No. 39, Buybacks of LDC Debt and the Scope for Forgiveness, by Beatriz Armendariz de Aghion, July 1991. Working Paper No. 40, Measuring and Modelling Non‐Tariff Distortions with Special Reference to Trade in Agricultural Commodities, by Peter J. Lloyd, July 1991. Working Paper No. 41, The Changing Nature of IMF Conditionality, by Jacques J. Polak, August 1991. Working Paper No. 42, Time‐Varying Estimates on the Openness of the Capital Account in Korea and Taiwan, by Helmut Reisen and Hélène Yèches, August 1991. Working Paper No. 43, Toward a Concept of Development Agreements, by F. Gerard Adams, August 1991. Document de travail No. 44, Le Partage du fardeau entre les créanciers de pays débiteurs défaillants, par Jean‐Claude Berthélemy et Ann Vourc’h, septembre 1991. Working Paper No. 45, The External Financing of Thailand’s Imports, by Supote Chunanunthathum, October 1991. Working Paper No. 46, The External Financing of Brazilian Imports, by Enrico Colombatto, with Elisa Luciano, Luca Gargiulo, Pietro Garibaldi and Giuseppe Russo, October 1991. Working Paper No. 47, Scenarios for the World Trading System and their Implications for Developing Countries, by Robert Z. Lawrence, November 1991. Working Paper No. 48, Trade Policies in a Global Context: Technical Specifications of the Rural/Urban‐North/South (RUNS) Applied General Equilibrium Model, by Jean‐Marc Burniaux and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, November 1991. Working Paper No. 49, Macro‐Micro Linkages: Structural Adjustment and Fertilizer Policy in Sub‐Saharan Africa, by Jean‐Marc Fontaine with the collaboration of Alice Sindzingre, December 1991. Working Paper No. 50, Aggregation by Industry in General Equilibrium Models with International Trade, by Peter J. Lloyd, December 1991. Working Paper No. 51, Policy and Entrepreneurial Responses to the Montreal Protocol: Some Evidence from the Dynamic Asian Economies, by David C. O’Connor, December 1991. Working Paper No. 52, On the Pricing of LDC Debt: an Analysis Based on Historical Evidence from Latin America, by Beatriz Armendariz de Aghion, February 1992. Working Paper No. 53, Economic Regionalisation and Intra‐Industry Trade: Pacific‐Asian Perspectives, by Kiichiro Fukasaku, February 1992. Working Paper No. 54, Debt Conversions in Yugoslavia, by Mojmir Mrak, February 1992. Working Paper No. 55, Evaluation of Nigeria’s Debt‐Relief Experience (1985‐1990), by N.E. Ogbe, March 1992. Document de travail No. 56, L’Expérience de l’allégement de la dette du Mali, par Jean‐Claude Berthélemy, février 1992. Working Paper No. 57, Conflict or Indifference: US Multinationals in a World of Regional Trading Blocs, by Louis T. Wells, Jr., March 1992. Working Paper No. 58, Japan’s Rapidly Emerging Strategy Toward Asia, by Edward J. Lincoln, April 1992. Working Paper No. 59, The Political Economy of Stabilization Programmes in Developing Countries, by Bruno S. Frey and Reiner Eichenberger, April 1992. Working Paper No. 60, Some Implications of Europe 1992 for Developing Countries, by Sheila Page, April 1992. Working Paper No. 61, Taiwanese Corporations in Globalisation and Regionalisation, by Gee San, April 1992.

© OECD 2008 51


DEV/DOC(2008)8

Working Paper No. 62, Lessons from the Family Planning Experience for Community‐Based Environmental Education, by Winifred Weekes‐Vagliani, April 1992. Working Paper No. 63, Mexican Agriculture in the Free Trade Agreement: Transition Problems in Economic Reform, by Santiago Levy and Sweder van Wijnbergen, May 1992. Working Paper No. 64, Offensive and Defensive Responses by European Multinationals to a World of Trade Blocs, by John M. Stopford, May 1992. Working Paper No. 65, Economic Integration in the Pacific Region, by Richard Drobnick, May 1992. Working Paper No. 66, Latin America in a Changing Global Environment, by Winston Fritsch, May 1992. Working Paper No. 67, An Assessment of the Brady Plan Agreements, by Jean‐Claude Berthélemy and Robert Lensink, May 1992. Working Paper No. 68, The Impact of Economic Reform on the Performance of the Seed Sector in Eastern and Southern Africa, by Elizabeth Cromwell, June 1992. Working Paper No. 69, Impact of Structural Adjustment and Adoption of Technology on Competitiveness of Major Cocoa Producing Countries, by Emily M. Bloomfield and R. Antony Lass, June 1992. Working Paper No. 70, Structural Adjustment and Moroccan Agriculture: an Assessment of the Reforms in the Sugar and Cereal Sectors, by Jonathan Kydd and Sophie Thoyer, June 1992. Document de travail No. 71, L’Allégement de la dette au Club de Paris : les évolutions récentes en perspective, par Ann Vourc’h, juin 1992. Working Paper No. 72, Biotechnology and the Changing Public/Private Sector Balance: Developments in Rice and Cocoa, by Carliene Brenner, July 1992. Working Paper No. 73, Namibian Agriculture: Policies and Prospects, by Walter Elkan, Peter Amutenya, Jochbeth Andima, Robin Sherbourne and Eline van der Linden, July 1992. Working Paper No. 74, Agriculture and the Policy Environment: Zambia and Zimbabwe, by Doris J. Jansen and Andrew Rukovo, July 1992. Working Paper No. 75, Agricultural Productivity and Economic Policies: Concepts and Measurements, by Yair Mundlak, August 1992. Working Paper No. 76, Structural Adjustment and the Institutional Dimensions of Agricultural Research and Development in Brazil: Soybeans, Wheat and Sugar Cane, by John Wilkinson and Bernardo Sorj, August 1992. Working Paper No. 77, The Impact of Laws and Regulations on Micro and Small Enterprises in Niger and Swaziland, by Isabelle Joumard, Carl Liedholm and Donald Mead, September 1992. Working Paper No. 78, Co‐Financing Transactions between Multilateral Institutions and International Banks, by Michel Bouchet and Amit Ghose, October 1992. Document de travail No. 79, Allégement de la dette et croissance : le cas mexicain, par Jean‐Claude Berthélemy et Ann Vourc’h, octobre 1992. Document de travail No. 80, Le Secteur informel en Tunisie : cadre réglementaire et pratique courante, par Abderrahman Ben Zakour et Farouk Kria, novembre 1992. Working Paper No. 81, Small‐Scale Industries and Institutional Framework in Thailand, by Naruemol Bunjongjit and Xavier Oudin, November 1992. Working Paper No. 81a, Statistical Annex: Small‐Scale Industries and Institutional Framework in Thailand, by Naruemol Bunjongjit and Xavier Oudin, November 1992. Document de travail No. 82, L’Expérience de l’allégement de la dette du Niger, par Ann Vourc’h et Maina Boukar Moussa, novembre 1992. Working Paper No. 83, Stabilization and Structural Adjustment in Indonesia: an Intertemporal General Equilibrium Analysis, by David Roland‐Holst, November 1992. Working Paper No. 84, Striving for International Competitiveness: Lessons from Electronics for Developing Countries, by Jan Maarten de Vet, March 1993. Document de travail No. 85, Micro‐entreprises et cadre institutionnel en Algérie, par Hocine Benissad, mars 1993. Working Paper No. 86, Informal Sector and Regulations in Ecuador and Jamaica, by Emilio Klein and Victor E. Tokman, August 1993. Working Paper No. 87, Alternative Explanations of the Trade‐Output Correlation in the East Asian Economies, by Colin I. Bradford Jr. and Naomi Chakwin, August 1993. Document de travail No. 88, La Faisabilité politique de l’ajustement dans les pays africains, par Christian Morrisson, Jean‐Dominique Lafay et Sébastien Dessus, novembre 1993. Working Paper No. 89, China as a Leading Pacific Economy, by Kiichiro Fukasaku and Mingyuan Wu, November 1993. Working Paper No. 90, A Detailed Input‐Output Table for Morocco, 1990, by Maurizio Bussolo and David Roland‐Holst November 1993. Working Paper No. 91, International Trade and the Transfer of Environmental Costs and Benefits, by Hiro Lee and David Roland‐Holst, December 1993. Working Paper No. 92, Economic Instruments in Environmental Policy: Lessons from the OECD Experience and their Relevance to Developing Economies, by Jean‐Philippe Barde, January 1994. Working Paper No. 93, What Can Developing Countries Learn from OECD Labour Market Programmes and Policies?, by Åsa Sohlman with David Turnham, January 1994. Working Paper No. 94, Trade Liberalization and Employment Linkages in the Pacific Basin, by Hiro Lee and David Roland‐Holst, February 1994.

52 © OECD 2008


DEV/DOC(2008)8

Working Paper No. 95, Participatory Development and Gender: Articulating Concepts and Cases, by Winifred Weekes‐Vagliani, February 1994. Document de travail No. 96, Promouvoir la maîtrise locale et régionale du développement : une démarche participative à Madagascar, par Philippe de Rham et Bernard Lecomte, juin 1994. Working Paper No. 97, The OECD Green Model: an Updated Overview, by Hiro Lee, Joaquim Oliveira‐Martins and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, August 1994. Working Paper No. 98, Pension Funds, Capital Controls and Macroeconomic Stability, by Helmut Reisen and John Williamson, August 1994. Working Paper No. 99, Trade and Pollution Linkages: Piecemeal Reform and Optimal Intervention, by John Beghin, David Roland‐Holst and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, October 1994. Working Paper No. 100, International Initiatives in Biotechnology for Developing Country Agriculture: Promises and Problems, by Carliene Brenner and John Komen, October 1994. Working Paper No. 101, Input‐based Pollution Estimates for Environmental Assessment in Developing Countries, by Sébastien Dessus, David Roland‐Holst and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, October 1994. Working Paper No. 102, Transitional Problems from Reform to Growth: Safety Nets and Financial Efficiency in the Adjusting Egyptian Economy, by Mahmoud Abdel‐Fadil, December 1994. Working Paper No. 103, Biotechnology and Sustainable Agriculture: Lessons from India, by Ghayur Alam, December 1994. Working Paper No. 104, Crop Biotechnology and Sustainability: a Case Study of Colombia, by Luis R. Sanint, January 1995. Working Paper No. 105, Biotechnology and Sustainable Agriculture: the Case of Mexico, by José Luis Solleiro Rebolledo, January 1995. Working Paper No. 106, Empirical Specifications for a General Equilibrium Analysis of Labor Market Policies and Adjustments, by Andréa Maechler and David Roland‐Holst, May 1995. Document de travail No. 107, Les Migrants, partenaires de la coopération internationale : le cas des Maliens de France, par Christophe Daum, juillet 1995. Document de travail No. 108, Ouverture et croissance industrielle en Chine : étude empirique sur un échantillon de villes, par Sylvie Démurger, septembre 1995. Working Paper No. 109, Biotechnology and Sustainable Crop Production in Zimbabwe, by John J. Woodend, December 1995. Document de travail No. 110, Politiques de l’environnement et libéralisation des échanges au Costa Rica : une vue d’ensemble, par Sébastien Dessus et Maurizio Bussolo, février 1996. Working Paper No. 111, Grow Now/Clean Later, or the Pursuit of Sustainable Development?, by David O’Connor, March 1996. Working Paper No. 112, Economic Transition and Trade‐Policy Reform: Lessons from China, by Kiichiro Fukasaku and Henri‐Bernard Solignac Lecomte, July 1996. Working Paper No. 113, Chinese Outward Investment in Hong Kong: Trends, Prospects and Policy Implications, by Yun‐Wing Sung, July 1996. Working Paper No. 114, Vertical Intra‐industry Trade between China and OECD Countries, by Lisbeth Hellvin, July 1996. Document de travail No. 115, Le Rôle du capital public dans la croissance des pays en développement au cours des années 80, par Sébastien Dessus et Rémy Herrera, juillet 1996. Working Paper No. 116, General Equilibrium Modelling of Trade and the Environment, by John Beghin, Sébastien Dessus, David Roland‐Holst and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, September 1996. Working Paper No. 117, Labour Market Aspects of State Enterprise Reform in Viet Nam, by David O’Connor, September 1996. Document de travail No. 118, Croissance et compétitivité de l’industrie manufacturière au Sénégal, par Thierry Latreille et Aristomène Varoudakis, octobre 1996. Working Paper No. 119, Evidence on Trade and Wages in the Developing World, by Donald J. Robbins, December 1996. Working Paper No. 120, Liberalising Foreign Investments by Pension Funds: Positive and Normative Aspects, by Helmut Reisen, January 1997. Document de travail No. 121, Capital Humain, ouverture extérieure et croissance : estimation sur données de panel d’un modèle à coefficients variables, par Jean‐Claude Berthélemy, Sébastien Dessus et Aristomène Varoudakis, janvier 1997. Working Paper No. 122, Corruption: The Issues, by Andrew W. Goudie and David Stasavage, January 1997. Working Paper No. 123, Outflows of Capital from China, by David Wall, March 1997. Working Paper No. 124, Emerging Market Risk and Sovereign Credit Ratings, by Guillermo Larraín, Helmut Reisen and Julia von Maltzan, April 1997. Working Paper No. 125, Urban Credit Co‐operatives in China, by Eric Girardin and Xie Ping, August 1997. Working Paper No. 126, Fiscal Alternatives of Moving from Unfunded to Funded Pensions, by Robert Holzmann, August 1997. Working Paper No. 127, Trade Strategies for the Southern Mediterranean, by Peter A. Petri, December 1997. Working Paper No. 128, The Case of Missing Foreign Investment in the Southern Mediterranean, by Peter A. Petri, December 1997. Working Paper No. 129, Economic Reform in Egypt in a Changing Global Economy, by Joseph Licari, December 1997. Working Paper No. 130, Do Funded Pensions Contribute to Higher Aggregate Savings? A Cross‐Country Analysis, by Jeanine Bailliu and Helmut Reisen, December 1997.

© OECD 2008 53


DEV/DOC(2008)8

Working Paper No. 131, Long‐run Growth Trends and Convergence Across Indian States, by Rayaprolu Nagaraj, Aristomène Varoudakis and Marie‐Ange Véganzonès, January 1998. Working Paper No. 132, Sustainable and Excessive Current Account Deficits, by Helmut Reisen, February 1998. Working Paper No. 133, Intellectual Property Rights and Technology Transfer in Developing Country Agriculture: Rhetoric and Reality, by Carliene Brenner, March 1998. Working Paper No. 134, Exchange‐rate Management and Manufactured Exports in Sub‐Saharan Africa, by Khalid Sekkat and Aristomène Varoudakis, March 1998. Working Paper No. 135, Trade Integration with Europe, Export Diversification and Economic Growth in Egypt, by Sébastien Dessus and Akiko Suwa‐Eisenmann, June 1998. Working Paper No. 136, Domestic Causes of Currency Crises: Policy Lessons for Crisis Avoidance, by Helmut Reisen, June 1998. Working Paper No. 137, A Simulation Model of Global Pension Investment, by Landis MacKellar and Helmut Reisen, August 1998. Working Paper No. 138, Determinants of Customs Fraud and Corruption: Evidence from Two African Countries, by David Stasavage and Cécile Daubrée, August 1998. Working Paper No. 139, State Infrastructure and Productive Performance in Indian Manufacturing, by Arup Mitra, Aristomène Varoudakis and Marie‐Ange Véganzonès, August 1998. Working Paper No. 140, Rural Industrial Development in Viet Nam and China: A Study in Contrasts, by David O’Connor, September 1998. Working Paper No. 141,Labour Market Aspects of State Enterprise Reform in China, by Fan Gang,Maria Rosa Lunati and David O’Connor, October 1998. Working Paper No. 142, Fighting Extreme Poverty in Brazil: The Influence of Citizens’ Action on Government Policies, by Fernanda Lopes de Carvalho, November 1998. Working Paper No. 143, How Bad Governance Impedes Poverty Alleviation in Bangladesh, by Rehman Sobhan, November 1998. Document de travail No. 144, La libéralisation de l’agriculture tunisienne et l’Union européenne: une vue prospective, par Mohamed Abdelbasset Chemingui et Sébastien Dessus, février 1999. Working Paper No. 145, Economic Policy Reform and Growth Prospects in Emerging African Economies, by Patrick Guillaumont, Sylviane Guillaumont Jeanneney and Aristomène Varoudakis, March 1999. Working Paper No. 146, Structural Policies for International Competitiveness in Manufacturing: The Case of Cameroon, by Ludvig Söderling, March 1999. Working Paper No. 147, China’s Unfinished Open‐Economy Reforms: Liberalisation of Services, by Kiichiro Fukasaku, Yu Ma and Qiumei Yang, April 1999. Working Paper No. 148, Boom and Bust and Sovereign Ratings, by Helmut Reisen and Julia von Maltzan, June 1999. Working Paper No. 149, Economic Opening and the Demand for Skills in Developing Countries: A Review of Theory and Evidence, by David O’Connor and Maria Rosa Lunati, June 1999. Working Paper No. 150, The Role of Capital Accumulation, Adjustment and Structural Change for Economic Take‐off: Empirical Evidence from African Growth Episodes, by Jean‐Claude Berthélemy and Ludvig Söderling, July 1999. Working Paper No. 151, Gender, Human Capital and Growth: Evidence from Six Latin American Countries, by Donald J. Robbins, September 1999. Working Paper No. 152, The Politics and Economics of Transition to an Open Market Economy in Viet Nam, by James Riedel and William S. Turley, September 1999. Working Paper No. 153, The Economics and Politics of Transition to an Open Market Economy: China, by Wing Thye Woo, October 1999. Working Paper No. 154, Infrastructure Development and Regulatory Reform in Sub‐Saharan Africa: The Case of Air Transport, by Andrea E. Goldstein, October 1999. Working Paper No. 155, The Economics and Politics of Transition to an Open Market Economy: India, by Ashok V. Desai, October 1999. Working Paper No. 156, Climate Policy Without Tears: CGE‐Based Ancillary Benefits Estimates for Chile, by Sébastien Dessus and David O’Connor, November 1999. Document de travail No. 157, Dépenses d’éducation, qualité de l’éducation et pauvreté : l’exemple de cinq pays d’Afrique francophone, par Katharina Michaelowa, avril 2000. Document de travail No. 158, Une estimation de la pauvreté en Afrique subsaharienne d’après les données anthropométriques, par Christian Morrisson, Hélène Guilmeau et Charles Linskens, mai 2000. Working Paper No. 159, Converging European Transitions, by Jorge Braga de Macedo, July 2000. Working Paper No. 160, Capital Flows and Growth in Developing Countries: Recent Empirical Evidence, by Marcelo Soto, July 2000. Working Paper No. 161, Global Capital Flows and the Environment in the 21st Century, by David O’Connor, July 2000. Working Paper No. 162, Financial Crises and International Architecture: A “Eurocentric” Perspective, by Jorge Braga de Macedo, August 2000. Document de travail No. 163, Résoudre le problème de la dette : de l’initiative PPTE à Cologne, par Anne Joseph, août 2000. Working Paper No. 164, E‐Commerce for Development: Prospects and Policy Issues, by Andrea Goldstein and David O’Connor, September 2000. Working Paper No. 165, Negative Alchemy? Corruption and Composition of Capital Flows, by Shang‐Jin Wei, October 2000. Working Paper No. 166, The HIPC Initiative: True and False Promises, by Daniel Cohen, October 2000.

54 © OECD 2008


DEV/DOC(2008)8

Document de travail No. 167, Les facteurs explicatifs de la malnutrition en Afrique subsaharienne, par Christian Morrisson et Charles Linskens, octobre 2000. Working Paper No. 168, Human Capital and Growth: A Synthesis Report, by Christopher A. Pissarides, November 2000. Working Paper No. 169, Obstacles to Expanding Intra‐African Trade, by Roberto Longo and Khalid Sekkat, March 2001. Working Paper No. 170, Regional Integration In West Africa, by Ernest Aryeetey, March 2001. Working Paper No. 171, Regional Integration Experience in the Eastern African Region, by Andrea Goldstein and Njuguna S. Ndung’u, March 2001. Working Paper No. 172, Integration and Co‐operation in Southern Africa, by Carolyn Jenkins, March 2001. Working Paper No. 173, FDI in Sub‐Saharan Africa, by Ludger Odenthal, March 2001 Document de travail No. 174, La réforme des télécommunications en Afrique subsaharienne, par Patrick Plane, mars 2001. Working Paper No. 175, Fighting Corruption in Customs Administration: What Can We Learn from Recent Experiences?, by Irène Hors; April 2001. Working Paper No. 176, Globalisation and Transformation: Illusions and Reality, by Grzegorz W. Kolodko, May 2001. Working Paper No. 177, External Solvency, Dollarisation and Investment Grade: Towards a Virtuous Circle?, by Martin Grandes, June 2001. Document de travail No. 178, Congo 1965‐1999: Les espoirs déçus du « Brésil africain », par Joseph Maton avec Henri‐Bernard Solignac Lecomte, septembre 2001. Working Paper No. 179, Growth and Human Capital: Good Data, Good Results, by Daniel Cohen and Marcelo Soto, September 2001. Working Paper No. 180, Corporate Governance and National Development, by Charles P. Oman, October 2001. Working Paper No. 181, How Globalisation Improves Governance, by Federico Bonaglia, Jorge Braga de Macedo and Maurizio Bussolo, November 2001. Working Paper No. 182, Clearing the Air in India: The Economics of Climate Policy with Ancillary Benefits, by Maurizio Bussolo and David O’Connor, November 2001. Working Paper No. 183, Globalisation, Poverty and Inequality in sub‐Saharan Africa: A Political Economy Appraisal, by Yvonne M. Tsikata, December 2001. Working Paper No. 184, Distribution and Growth in Latin America in an Era of Structural Reform: The Impact of Globalisation, by Samuel A. Morley, December 2001. Working Paper No. 185, Globalisation, Liberalisation, Poverty and Income Inequality in Southeast Asia, by K.S. Jomo, December 2001. Working Paper No. 186, Globalisation, Growth and Income Inequality: The African Experience, by Steve Kayizzi‐Mugerwa, December 2001. Working Paper No. 187, The Social Impact of Globalisation in Southeast Asia, by Mari Pangestu, December 2001. Working Paper No. 188, Where Does Inequality Come From? Ideas and Implications for Latin America, by James A. Robinson, December 2001. Working Paper No. 189, Policies and Institutions for E‐Commerce Readiness: What Can Developing Countries Learn from OECD Experience?, by Paulo Bastos Tigre and David O’Connor, April 2002. Document de travail No. 190, La réforme du secteur financier en Afrique, par Anne Joseph, juillet 2002. Working Paper No. 191, Virtuous Circles? Human Capital Formation, Economic Development and the Multinational Enterprise, by Ethan B. Kapstein, August 2002. Working Paper No. 192, Skill Upgrading in Developing Countries: Has Inward Foreign Direct Investment Played a Role?, by Matthew J. Slaughter, August 2002. Working Paper No. 193, Government Policies for Inward Foreign Direct Investment in Developing Countries: Implications for Human Capital Formation and Income Inequality, by Dirk Willem te Velde, August 2002. Working Paper No. 194, Foreign Direct Investment and Intellectual Capital Formation in Southeast Asia, by Bryan K. Ritchie, August 2002. Working Paper No. 195, FDI and Human Capital: A Research Agenda, by Magnus Blomström and Ari Kokko, August 2002. Working Paper No. 196, Knowledge Diffusion from Multinational Enterprises: The Role of Domestic and Foreign Knowledge‐Enhancing Activities, by Yasuyuki Todo and Koji Miyamoto, August 2002. Working Paper No. 197, Why Are Some Countries So Poor? Another Look at the Evidence and a Message of Hope, by Daniel Cohen and Marcelo Soto, October 2002. Working Paper No. 198, Choice of an Exchange‐Rate Arrangement, Institutional Setting and Inflation: Empirical Evidence from Latin America, by Andreas Freytag, October 2002. Working Paper No. 199, Will Basel II Affect International Capital Flows to Emerging Markets?, by Beatrice Weder and Michael Wedow, October 2002. Working Paper No. 200, Convergence and Divergence of Sovereign Bond Spreads: Lessons from Latin America, by Martin Grandes, October 2002. Working Paper No. 201, Prospects for Emerging‐Market Flows amid Investor Concerns about Corporate Governance, by Helmut Reisen, November 2002. Working Paper No. 202, Rediscovering Education in Growth Regressions, by Marcelo Soto, November 2002. Working Paper No. 203, Incentive Bidding for Mobile Investment: Economic Consequences and Potential Responses, by Andrew Charlton, January 2003.

© OECD 2008 55


DEV/DOC(2008)8

Working Paper No. 204, Health Insurance for the Poor? Determinants of participation Community‐Based Health Insurance Schemes in Rural Senegal, by Johannes Jütting, January 2003. Working Paper No. 205, China’s Software Industry and its Implications for India, by Ted Tschang, February 2003. Working Paper No. 206, Agricultural and Human Health Impacts of Climate Policy in China: A General Equilibrium Analysis with Special Reference to Guangdong, by David O’Connor, Fan Zhai, Kristin Aunan, Terje Berntsen and Haakon Vennemo, March 2003. Working Paper No. 207, India’s Information Technology Sector: What Contribution to Broader Economic Development?, by Nirvikar Singh, March 2003. Working Paper No. 208, Public Procurement: Lessons from Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, by Walter Odhiambo and Paul Kamau, March 2003. Working Paper No. 209, Export Diversification in Low‐Income Countries: An International Challenge after Doha, by Federico Bonaglia and Kiichiro Fukasaku, June 2003. Working Paper No. 210, Institutions and Development: A Critical Review, by Johannes Jütting, July 2003. Working Paper No. 211, Human Capital Formation and Foreign Direct Investment in Developing Countries, by Koji Miyamoto, July 2003. Working Paper No. 212, Central Asia since 1991: The Experience of the New Independent States, by Richard Pomfret, July 2003. Working Paper No. 213, A Multi‐Region Social Accounting Matrix (1995) and Regional Environmental General Equilibrium Model for India (REGEMI), by Maurizio Bussolo, Mohamed Chemingui and David O’Connor, November 2003. Working Paper No. 214, Ratings Since the Asian Crisis, by Helmut Reisen, November 2003. Working Paper No. 215, Development Redux: Reflections for a New Paradigm, by Jorge Braga de Macedo, November 2003. Working Paper No. 216, The Political Economy of Regulatory Reform: Telecoms in the Southern Mediterranean, by Andrea Goldstein, November 2003. Working Paper No. 217, The Impact of Education on Fertility and Child Mortality: Do Fathers Really Matter Less than Mothers?, by Lucia Breierova and Esther Duflo, November 2003. Working Paper No. 218, Float in Order to Fix? Lessons from Emerging Markets for EU Accession Countries, by Jorge Braga de Macedo and Helmut Reisen, November 2003. Working Paper No. 219, Globalisation in Developing Countries: The Role of Transaction Costs in Explaining Economic Performance in India, by Maurizio Bussolo and John Whalley, November 2003. Working Paper No. 220, Poverty Reduction Strategies in a Budget‐Constrained Economy: The Case of Ghana, by Maurizio Bussolo and Jeffery I. Round, November 2003. Working Paper No. 221, Public‐Private Partnerships in Development: Three Applications in Timor Leste, by José Braz, November 2003. Working Paper No. 222, Public Opinion Research, Global Education and Development Co‐operation Reform: In Search of a Virtuous Circle, by Ida Mc Donnell, Henri‐Bernard Solignac Lecomte and Liam Wegimont, November 2003. Working Paper No. 223, Building Capacity to Trade: What Are the Priorities?, by Henry‐Bernard Solignac Lecomte, November 2003. Working Paper No. 224, Of Flying Geeks and O‐Rings: Locating Software and IT Services in India’s Economic Development, by David O’Connor, November 2003. Document de travail No. 225, Cap Vert: Gouvernance et Développement, par Jaime Lourenço and Colm Foy, novembre 2003. Working Paper No. 226, Globalisation and Poverty Changes in Colombia, by Maurizio Bussolo and Jann Lay, November 2003. Working Paper No. 227, The Composite Indicator of Economic Activity in Mozambique (ICAE): Filling in the Knowledge Gaps to Enhance Public‐Private Partnership (PPP), by Roberto J. Tibana, November 2003. Working Paper No. 228, Economic‐Reconstruction in Post‐Conflict Transitions: Lessons for the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), by Graciana del Castillo, November 2003. Working Paper No. 229, Providing Low‐Cost Information Technology Access to Rural Communities In Developing Countries: What Works? What Pays? by Georg Caspary and David O’Connor, November 2003. Working Paper No. 230, The Currency Premium and Local‐Currency Denominated Debt Costs in South Africa, by Martin Grandes, Marcel Peter and Nicolas Pinaud, December 2003. Working Paper No. 231, Macroeconomic Convergence in Southern Africa: The Rand Zone Experience, by Martin Grandes, December 2003. Working Paper No. 232, Financing Global and Regional Public Goods through ODA: Analysis and Evidence from the OECD Creditor Reporting System, by Helmut Reisen, Marcelo Soto and Thomas Weithöner, January 2004. Working Paper No. 233, Land, Violent Conflict and Development, by Nicolas Pons‐Vignon and Henri‐Bernard Solignac Lecomte, February 2004. Working Paper No. 234, The Impact of Social Institutions on the Economic Role of Women in Developing Countries, by Christian Morrisson and Johannes Jütting, May 2004. Document de travail No. 235, La condition desfemmes en Inde, Kenya, Soudan et Tunisie, par Christian Morrisson, août 2004. Working Paper No. 236, Decentralisation and Poverty in Developing Countries: Exploring the Impact, by Johannes Jütting, Céline Kauffmann, Ida Mc Donnell, Holger Osterrieder, Nicolas Pinaud and Lucia Wegner, August 2004. Working Paper No. 237, Natural Disasters and Adaptive Capacity, by Jeff Dayton‐Johnson, August 2004. Working Paper No. 238, Public Opinion Polling and the Millennium Development Goals, by Jude Fransman, Alphonse L. MacDonnald, Ida Mc Donnell and Nicolas Pons‐Vignon, October 2004. Working Paper No. 239, Overcoming Barriers to Competitiveness, by Orsetta Causa and Daniel Cohen, December 2004.

56 © OECD 2008


DEV/DOC(2008)8

© OECD 2008 57

Working Paper No. 240, Extending Insurance? Funeral Associations in Ethiopia and Tanzania, by Stefan Dercon, Tessa Bold, Joachim De Weerdt and Alula Pankhurst, December 2004. Working Paper No. 241, Macroeconomic Policies: New Issues of Interdependence, by Helmut Reisen, Martin Grandes and Nicolas Pinaud, January 2005. Working Paper No. 242, Institutional Change and its Impact on the Poor and Excluded: The Indian Decentralisation Experience, by D. Narayana, January 2005. Working Paper No. 243, Impact of Changes in Social Institutions on Income Inequality in China, by Hiroko Uchimura, May 2005. Working Paper No. 244, Priorities in Global Assistance for Health, AIDS and Population (HAP), by Landis MacKellar, June 2005. Working Paper No. 245, Trade and Structural Adjustment Policies in Selected Developing Countries, by Jens Andersson, Federico Bonaglia, Kiichiro Fukasaku and Caroline Lesser, July 2005. Working Paper No. 246, Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction: Measurement and Policy Issues, by Stephan Klasen, (September 2005). Working Paper No. 247, Measuring Gender (In)Equality: Introducing the Gender, Institutions and Development Data Base (GID), by Johannes P. Jütting, Christian Morrisson, Jeff Dayton‐Johnson and Denis Drechsler (March 2006). Working Paper No. 248, Institutional Bottlenecks for Agricultural Development: A Stock‐Taking Exercise Based on Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa by Juan R. de Laiglesia, March 2006. Working Paper No. 249, Migration Policy and its Interactions with Aid, Trade and Foreign Direct Investment Policies: A Background Paper, by Theodora Xenogiani, June 2006. Working Paper No. 250, Effects of Migration on Sending Countries: What Do We Know? by Louka T. Katseli, Robert E.B. Lucas and Theodora Xenogiani, June 2006. Document de travail No. 251, L’aide au développement et les autres flux nord‐sud : complémentarité ou substitution ?, par Denis Cogneau et Sylvie Lambert, juin 2006. Working Paper No. 252, Angel or Devil? China’s Trade Impact on Latin American Emerging Markets, by Jorge Blázquez‐Lidoy, Javier Rodríguez and Javier Santiso, June 2006. Working Paper No. 253, Policy Coherence for Development: A Background Paper on Foreign Direct Investment, by Thierry Mayer, July 2006. Working Paper No. 254, The Coherence of Trade Flows and Trade Policies with Aid and Investment Flows, by Akiko Suwa‐Eisenmann and Thierry Verdier, August 2006. Document de travail No. 255, Structures familiales, transferts et épargne : examen, par Christian Morrisson, août 2006. Working Paper No. 256, Ulysses, the Sirens and the Art of Navigation: Political and Technical Rationality in Latin America, by Javier Santiso and Laurence Whitehead, September 2006. Working Paper No. 257, Developing Country Multinationals: South‐South Investment Comes of Age, by Dilek Aykut and Andrea Goldstein, November 2006. Working Paper No. 258, The Usual Suspects: A Primer on Investment Banks’ Recommendations and Emerging Markets, by Javier Santiso and Sebastián Nieto Parra, January 2007. Working Paper No. 259, Banking on Democracy: The Political Economy of International Private Bank Lending in Emerging Markets, by Javier Rodríguez and Javier Santiso, March 2007. Working Paper No. 260, New Strategies for Emerging Domestic Sovereign Bond Markets, by Hans Blommestein and Javier Santiso, April 2007. Working Paper No. 261, Privatisation in the MEDA region. Where do we stand?, by Céline Kauffmann and Lucia Wegner, July 2007. Working Paper No. 262, Strengthening Productive Capacities in Emerging Economies through Internationalisation: Evidence from the Appliance Industry, by Federico Bonaglia and Andrea Goldstein, July 2007. Working Paper No. 263, Banking on Development: Private Banks and Aid Donors in Developing Countries, by Javier Rodríguez and Javier Santiso, November 2007. Working Paper No. 264, Fiscal Decentralisation, Chinese Style: Good for Health Outcomes?, by Hiroko Uchimura and Johannes Jütting, November 2007. Working Paper No. 265, Private Sector Participation and Regulatory Reform in Water supply: the Southern Mediterranean Experience, by Edouard Pérard, January 2008. Working Paper No. 266, Informal Employment Re‐loaded, by Johannes Jütting, Jante Parlevliet and Theodora Xenogiani, January 2008. Working Paper No. 267, Household Structures and Savings: Evidence from Household Surveys, by Juan R. de Laiglesia and Christian Morrisson, January 2008. Working Paper No. 268, Prudent versus Imprudent Lending to Africa: From Debt Relief to Emerging Lenders, by Helmut Reisen and Sokhna Ndoye, February 2008. Working Paper No. 269, Lending to the Poorest Countries: A New Counter‐Cyclical Debt Instrument, by Daniel Cohen, Hélène Djoufelkit‐Cottenet, Pierre Jacquet and Cécile Valadier, April 2008. Working Paper No.270, The Macro Management of Commodity Booms: Africa and Latin America’s Response to Asian Demand, by Rolando Avendaño, Helmut Reisen and Javier Santiso, August 2008. Working Paper No.271, Report on Informal Employment in Romania, by Jante Parlevliet and Theodora Xenogiani, July 2008.

wall street and elections in latin american emerging democracies

Documents

oecddevelopment centre

series of working papers

member countries centre

paris cedex

rue andr pascal

rue andrpascal

dveloppement documents

ides exprimes et